NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree with you, and I already knew no one would read what I wrote.
ha-ha
but i think my car comparation was so good
xD

;):p:rolleyes:

"Comparation"? I believe you mean "comparison."

What, it would've taken too long to load up dictionary.com?

Yeah i thought of writing comparison...
Does it really matter that much anyway? I already said I'm sorry about english errors in my previous post.

Pff.

Yeah i thought of writing comparison...
Does it really matter that much anyway? I already said I'm sorry about english errors in my previous post.

Pff.

Proper grammar and spelling tends to go a long way toward being taken seriously on this forum. You don't have to be impeccable, but if your writing looks like something on a lolcat image macro, don't expect much of a response.

I write ONE wrong word and I'm not taken seriously already?
How nice! Oh wait, you're just trying to look smart and superior.
Some people are actually kind and sweet and correct me in a non jackass way.
Thank you anyway I'll share my ideas with my CAT.

I would like to see you learning portuguese without taking any classes and without going to a portuguese-speaking country. :mad:

Recognizing people's efforts would be nice instead of putting your fingers in their eyes.

I write ONE wrong word and I'm not taken seriously already?
How nice! Oh wait, you're just trying to look smart and superior.
Some people are actually kind and sweet and correct me in a non jackass way.
Thank you anyway I'll share my ideas with my CAT.

I would like to see you learning portuguese without taking any classes and without going to a portuguese-speaking country. :mad:

Recognizing people's efforts would be nice instead of putting your fingers in their eyes.

To be honest, I'm not trying particularly hard.

Lol, bye.
I can't stay in this forum anymore, your ego fills the page I can't read anything anymore or have a conversation.
:D

:cool:

http://images.orkut.com/orkut/albums2/ATgAAAAz8sqKF3jZV_eTGGQUkAdoFNQwFpilrLt87G3e2kOKMakruF4zGIPbT5n7GtyZ0sJu_nLmdRC0CzD3pCpke0x4AJtU9VDK YH_VGcRshX4Bbd0sxKQxNNgvyA.jpg

Religion shouldn't be discussed between people who disagree badly, because it always ends in...


this.
:sniper:

:headbang:

:gundge:


:rolleyes:

of course not. as all believers, you have nothing to show. :rolleyes:.

Bollox. You know nothing about me, I have adequatly explained that it has taken me 30 years to reach the conclusions that I have, do you want to spend the next 30 years listening to me out line them, or will you just take my word for it.



faith has no bearing on reality whatsoever. believing in things will not create them.
and if you can't name who or what created the creator there is no reason so assume the creator's existence.

Bwhaha and that is how you reason that, is it? Faith cannot create so it has no bearing on reality, rubbish, like I say though I wont go into that here as I am doing so elsewhere. So again I'll ask, given reason for and context of our discusion upto this point, why are you asking me these questions?

Religion shouldn't be discussed between people who disagree badly, because it always ends in...


this.
:sniper:

:headbang:

:gundge:


:rolleyes:

Not always, we can all keep a grip, learn to get along, agree to disagree(enter platitude here)

Ding, ding, ding. Give the man a prize. It's, it's, it's almost like you have to conduct *gasp* science so that you can come to a single conclusion rather than several.

Perhaps you think faith is involved in science, GoG, because you're not quite sure how to test a hypothesis.



Wait a second. I post several pages of worth of argument and the only thing you can bother replying to is how crappy the devised experiment for your apple analogy is?

Who cares? That is not the point of my argument. It doesn't matter if my hypothesis or the experiment sucked. All I was showing you was that there were assumptions in your hypothesis that were also present in the interpretation of your data.

I often get the feeling that you don't bother trying to get the sense of what I'm trying to communicate. You'd rather just skim through my argument and try to find holes in little details. The reason I think this is because you post comments like this:

By the wah, GoG, you commented on testing supposed to get it to the minimum number of leaps. Question: What's the minimum number of leaps? I'd say zero, but that's just too easy and true.

If you had read my previous post to you, you would know that I already provided an example of an unproven assumption inherent to all scientific theories. But since you asked, here it is again:

Every single theory rests on several unproven assumptions, one of which is the following: all the factors affecting the phenomena being observed can be rationally comprehended.

Now that I've repeated myself for your sake, I will now repeat myself for my sake. Please provide an example of formulating a theory that makes no assumptions, uses no creative leaps, and has no subjectivity in the interpretation of data or the creation of models and analogies.

Wait a second. I post several pages of worth of argument and the only thing you can bother replying to is how crappy the devised experiment for your apple analogy is?

Yes, because it's the point. It's exactly where you're wrong. There aren't multiple conclusions. There is one.


Who cares? That is not the point of my argument. It doesn't matter if my hypothesis or the experiment sucked. All I was showing you was that there were assumptions in your hypothesis that were also present in the interpretation of your data.

You showed nothing of the sort. You showed that you don't know how to make proper predictions and test them. The point is that by the time you have a theory you have to have patched any speculation and turned it into supported theory.


I often get the feeling that you don't bother trying to get the sense of what I'm trying to communicate. You'd rather just skim through my argument and try to find holes in little details. The reason I think this is because you post comments like this:

Skim your argument? I just pointed to the most significant part. I know you really want to change this to be about something else, but I'm not going to let you. All the fat is getting trimmed off, baby, and if you don't like it, tough.

If you're saying there is some guesswork, some leaps, in a HYPOTHESIS. No one is arguing with you. However, you have yet to demonstrate AT ALL that said guesswork, those "creative leaps" as you call them, are permitted to remain in the CONCLUSION. You can try to drag the argument all over the place, but no amount of demonstrating what is permitted in a hypothesis will change that fact.

So again, show me ONE alternate experiment with two equally viable conclusions, and I will show you a problem in methodology. You already tried to do that once, and in doing so I demonstrated the flaw in your experimentation.

Soheran tried to do the same and violated Occam's Razor.

THAT is the point.



If you had read my previous post to you, you would know that I already provided an example of an unproven assumption inherent to all scientific theories. But since you asked, here it is again:

No, it doesn't rest on that assumption, friend. It simply only addresses those things that one can rationally comprehend. Science accepts that some things are not within it's reach and simply and casually ignores them.

It does not assume that only things that can demonstrated emperically exist. Instead, it only addresses those things which can be demonstrated emperically.

For example, it doesn't assume God does or does not exist. It doesn't assume God can or cannot be rationally comprehended. It doesn't assume anything about God because it only addresses that which can be demonstrated emperically.

And despite all that, none of that is the crux of the disagreement. Until you can show where multiple theoriesare all treated as true, rather than possible, you've failed to hold up against what I objected to. Until you show me two valid conclusions for a given set of data with no problems in methodology, you've failed to hold up against what I objected to. Let me remind you where the disagreement lies, since you've forgotten.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13481216&postcount=87
Um, it's not that simple.

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

Oh, nonsense. It's not a leap. We take the most sensible path to explain what we've observed. The simplest answer that explains the data. Sometimes those answers are quite creative, but they are not leaps in the way you describe and any form of a leap is nearly never necessary. When we really cannot form a conclusion we leave the question open, for example by calling it a singularity without ascribing any traits to it unless we have evidence for them.

In other words, you claimed that there is NEVER a single conclusion. You claimed there are creative leaps in the CONCLUSION, not the HYPOTHESIS.

Now, you want to change your answer some more? Now I've repeated myself for your sake. You wanna pretend some more that we're talking about the hypothesis. You missed this point earlier. You started about the conclusion. Then to demonstrate your point to you started talking about the "formation of the theory" which had nothing to do with your claim as above, since no matter how many creative leaps there are in the experimentation, hypothesis, observation or what have you, the conclusion is what you made the claim about. That's why in the first couple of posts I pointed out that you had switched to the hypothesis.

Now that I've repeated myself for your sake, I will now repeat myself for my sake. Please provide an example of formulating a theory that makes no assumptions, uses no creative leaps, and has no subjectivity in the interpretation of data or the creation of models and analogies.

Again, you're equivocating. There I've repeated myself AGAIN for YOU.

See, in mixing the entire process together you imply that creative leaps remain in the conclusion. Moreso, you straight up said that mulitple valid conclusions exist and are treated as true. It was this I objected to. It's absolutely not true. You're mixing up the hypothesis with the conclusion. There are multiple hypotheses possible from a given set of observations, but there is only one conclusion possible at the point you reach a theory. ONE. You've not demonstrated otherwise.

So I've shown you an experiment with apples. You said multiple valid conclusions exist. That there is no single logical conclusion. If this is true, what other conclusions are available from this experiment?

of course not. as all believers, you have nothing to show. :rolleyes:

Oh, the irony.

Your claim: Faith is only a thing in your mind that has nothing to do with reality.

Let me know when you define reality and show that faith has nothing to do with it. It would prove interesting since it would be going beyond the bounds of science and reason.

faith has no bearing on reality whatsoever. believing in things will not create them.
and if you can't name who or what created the creator there is no reason so assume the creator's existence.

Oh, look there's that claim again. Again, show your evidence.

EDIT: For those who don't know, UB ignores me. He doesn't have me on ignore. He ignores me. He does so because it really irks him when people point out the blatantly obvious leaps of faith he engages in. Leaps of faith apparent to theists and atheists alike.

They do? Are you seriously saying there are no bananas in East Africa. Have you opened an Almanac in like 1000 years?

no, i'm saying that even if the sorts of foods primates like were instinctual (which is ridiculous on its face), there could not be such an instinct within chimps towards bananas because chimps evolved into chimps without any bananas around. you are proposing the independent origin of a very complex genetically fixed response in hundreds of independent chimp lineages.

Probably. But I was talking about, as are you, science for public consumption. We don't treat things as true in the community without peer-review. However, even after passing peer-review, it's possible for something to not be science, and vice versa. And what is peer-review checking for, or supposed to check for? Hmmm.. methodology. Now, why would it do that? Oh, dear, to check and see if it's science. See how that works?

the public checking of methodology and results is an inherent and vital part of science, full stop. if this is not being done, then it is not science. it may be scientific, but without the communal aspect it just fails to be science.

we are not talking about public consumption of scientific ideas when we say that science is self-correcting. what we are saying is that one of the things that distinguishes science from other possible processes for generating knowledge-claims is that it has this self-checking feature as part and parcel of what it is to be science. if it didn't, then we would have significantly less reason to trust the objectivity of science over and above our own thoughts on how things are.

Hmmm... who decides this?

the meaning of concepts

They weren't? Are you claiming that other people weren't engaged in testing the orbits of Venus over hundreds of years? The measurements were continually verified for hundreds of years by ONE person? Hmmm... that seems impossible, but since you've made such a strong case.

tell me what the scientific explanatory frameworks for the apparent motion of venus were. the closest you'll get to something scientific shows up with the greeks or the chinese, and maybe a few other cultures. but none of those sparked off something comparable to the melvin revolution. this strikes me as an intrinsically important difference

You usually answer questions by repeating them back to me? I asked you what makes them special?

i am asking if you agree that there was something new and different to the melvin revolution. i see the melvin revolution as something other than just more of the same , a simple outgrowth of a natural human endeavor. if you do as well, then we must wonder what changed. i have explicitly told you what i think changed; science/melvin was born, the set of philosophical principles and social institutions necessary to do science were put forth and acted upon in a way that they just hadn't been previously (at least not fully enough to birth melvin earlier). and this is what participants in the melvin revolution themselves claimed was up, though the early ones retained significant loyalties to the older styles of learning and attempted to ground their ideas in the works of the ancients.

thus we have francis bacon saying things like:

"Now that the errors which have hitherto prevailed, and which will prevail for ever, should (if the mind be left to go its own way) either by the natural force of the understanding or by help of the aids and instruments of logic, one by one, correct themselves, was a thing not to be hoped for, because the primary notions of things which the mind readily and passively imbibes, stores up, and accumulates (and it is from them that all the rest flow) are false, confused, and overhastily abstracted from the facts; nor are the secondary and subsequent notions less arbitrary and inconstant; whence it follows that the entire fabric of human reason which we employ in the inquisition of nature is badly put together and built up, and like some magnificent structure without any foundation. For while men are occupied in admiring and applauding the false powers of the mind, they pass by and throw away those true powers, which, if it be supplied with the proper aids and can itself be content to wait upon nature instead of vainly affecting to overrule her, are within its reach. There was but one course left, therefore — to try the whole thing anew upon a better plan, and to commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon the proper foundations."

and

"We have no reason to be ashamed of the discoveries which have been made, and no doubt the ancients proved themselves in everything that turns on wit and abstract meditation, wonderful men. But, as in former ages, when men sailed only by observation of the stars, they could indeed coast along the shores of the old continent or cross a few small and Mediterranean seas; but before the ocean could be traversed and the new world discovered, the use of the mariner's needle, as a more faithful and certain guide, had to be found out; in like manner the discoveries which have been hitherto made in the arts and sciences are such as might be made by practice, meditation, observation, argumentation — for they lay near to the senses and immediately beneath common notions; but before we can reach the remoter and more hidden parts of nature, it is necessary that a more perfect use and application of the human mind and intellect be introduced."

1) People who have faith have an annoying tendency to want to put it into law. Therefore, they must be able to defend their faith as to why it should apply to everyone. This argument does not apply to those who practice faith in the privacy of their own homes.

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't give a damn about sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc but yet I could, and have been, attacked still for my belief irrespective of that.

I don't expect nor do I ask anyone to convert to my ways of thinking in terms of religion/faith, neither do I expect the law to change into my way of thinking in terms of my faith - but inspite of that I have been (and probably still will be) demanded to 'defend' my faith.

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't give a damn about sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc but yet I could, and have been, attacked still for my belief irrespective of that.

I don't expect nor do I ask anyone to convert to my ways of thinking in terms of religion/faith, neither do I expect the law to change into my way of thinking in terms of my faith - but inspite of that I have been (and probably still will be) demanded to 'defend' my faith.So you separate your faith in your god from your obedience to your god?

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't give a damn about sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc but yet I could, and have been, attacked still for my belief irrespective of that.

I don't expect nor do I ask anyone to convert to my ways of thinking in terms of religion/faith, neither do I expect the law to change into my way of thinking in terms of my faith - but inspite of that I have been (and probably still will be) demanded to 'defend' my faith.


Heh come to terms with the fact that the majority of us do not like those that are differant from us, and that this interfers in all aspects of life. Then realise that it don't matter much, and just have yourself some fun in here.

Heh come to terms with the fact that the majority of us do not like those that are differant from us, and that this interfers in all aspects of life. Then realise that it don't matter much, and just have yourself some fun in here.The majority of what?

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't give a damn about sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc but yet I could, and have been, attacked still for my belief irrespective of that.

How did you manage to keep your faith internally consistent then ?

Yes, because it's the point. It's exactly where you're wrong. There aren't multiple conclusions. There is one.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'conclusion'? To me, a conclusion is a judgement or opinion based on the outcome of an experiment or an investigation.

You seem to be treating the word as something else.

You showed nothing of the sort. You showed that you don't know how to make proper predictions and test them. The point is that by the time you have a theory you have to have patched any speculation and turned it into supported theory.

And here is where you ignored my account of Galileo.

If you're saying there is some guesswork, some leaps, in a HYPOTHESIS. No one is arguing with you. However, you have yet to demonstrate AT ALL that said guesswork, those "creative leaps" as you call them, are permitted to remain in the CONCLUSION. You can try to drag the argument all over the place, but no amount of demonstrating what is permitted in a hypothesis will change that fact.

Why should I demonstrate that when I'm not arguing that? I even pointed this before. I will repeat myself again, as you seem to have missed it:

To get to my point: you are correct that the theory itself should not have leaps. It is fortunate that I never claimed that it should. What I claimed was that the process by which we arrive at the the theory is full of leaps.

And just so we're clear, the hypothesis should also not have leaps.

So again, show me ONE alternate experiment with two equally viable conclusions, and I will show you a problem in methodology. You already tried to do that once, and in doing so I demonstrated the flaw in your experimentation.

Soheran tried to do the same and violated Occam's Razor.

THAT is the point.

I never said that they were equally viable conclusions. If we are defining 'conclusion' the way I believe you are defining it, then all experiments should inevitably lead to one conclusion which is in perfect coordination with reality. But that does not mean that all the other conclusions that came before that were not partially valid, or were not logical.

Newton came to logical conclusions about the Universe that were later proved wrong by Einstein. That does not mean that Newton's conclusions were not logical.

No, it doesn't rest on that assumption, friend. It simply only addresses those things that one can rationally comprehend. Science accepts that some things are not within it's reach and simply and casually ignores them.

It does not assume that only things that can demonstrated emperically exist. Instead, it only addresses those things which can be demonstrated emperically.

For example, it doesn't assume God does or does not exist. It doesn't assume God can or cannot be rationally comprehended. It doesn't assume anything about God because it only addresses that which can be demonstrated emperically.

How does science only address those things that one can rationally comprehend? You said it yourself: science casually ignores them. Scientists can do this because they have assumed that all the factors affecting the phenomena under observation are rationally comprehensible.

If scientists did not make this assumption, and went with the idea that there are irrational factors in the universe (faeries, etc.) that are affecting phenomena, it would be impossible to do science as we know it. How would you even make a control group?

And despite all that, none of that is the crux of the disagreement. Until you can show where multiple theories are all treated as true, rather than possible, you've failed to hold up against what I objected to. Until you show me two valid conclusions for a given set of data with no problems in methodology, you've failed to hold up against what I objected to. Let me remind you where the disagreement lies, since you've forgotten.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13481216&postcount=87

In other words, you claimed that there is NEVER a single conclusion. You claimed there are creative leaps in the CONCLUSION, not the HYPOTHESIS.

Here is a list of all the things you say I'm claiming but that I am not:


multiple theories are all treated as true, rather than possible
there are creative leaps in the CONCLUSION
there can be two valid conclusions for a given set of data with no problems in methodology


Since you are disagreeing with these things, rather than what I am really claiming, I wonder how to get over this, so that at least we're arguing about the same thing.

The scientific method is the tool we use to distinguish the truest theory from all the possible hypotheses. One of the criteria involved in the application of this method is that there should be no creative leaps in it.

There. Have I now proven to you that I am not arguing these things? Can we get back to the real discusssion now?

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap...

I will clarify this: There are several logical conclusions that follow from given facts. One of these is the correct one. The process that we go through to determine which is the correct one has elements of creativity, subjectivity and faith in it, even though it is designed to reduce all of these as much as possible.

Now, I say it's a short answer because the actual answer takes pages and pages of explanation.

Now, you want to change your answer some more? Now I've repeated myself for your sake. You wanna pretend some more that we're talking about the hypothesis. You missed this point earlier. You started about the conclusion. Then to demonstrate your point to you started talking about the "formation of the theory" which had nothing to do with your claim as above, since no matter how many creative leaps there are in the experimentation, hypothesis, observation or what have you, the conclusion is what you made the claim about. That's why in the first couple of posts I pointed out that you had switched to the hypothesis.

When I replied to Cabra's post, I had no idea that I had to use your definition of what a conclusion is. I was using the word in the same manner that she was.

See, in mixing the entire process together you imply that creative leaps remain in the conclusion. Moreso, you straight up said that mulitple valid conclusions exist and are treated as true. It was this I objected to. It's absolutely not true. You're mixing up the hypothesis with the conclusion. There are multiple hypotheses possible from a given set of observations, but there is only one conclusion possible at the point you reach a theory. ONE. You've not demonstrated otherwise.

So the bolded stuff is things I never claimed. And I will wait for your definition of what 'conclusion' is before I address the rest of this paragraph.

So I've shown you an experiment with apples. You said multiple valid conclusions exist. That there is no single logical conclusion. If this is true, what other conclusions are available from this experiment?

I gave you another logical (not equally viable) conclusion. And I showed you how you made an assumption in your modelling of a hypothesis and in your interpretation of the data. So, you have yet to show me how to formulate a theory without making any leaps.

The majority of what?

The majority of us.

The majority of us.There is no us.

Aye, but how can one define "certified"? Again, it is a matter of opinion. For all we know, the inside of an atom could be a deck of playing cards. Same with creation theories. None of us were there. Everything is opinionated; nothing is true, but rather generally accepted.

So presumably you'd advocate that all police forces disband their forensic science units at once? After all, if nobody actually witnessed the crime first hand then the guilt or innocence of the suspect is just an opinion, right? Even if strands of their hair were found at the scene of the crime, the victim's blood was on their clothes and their fingerprints were on the murder weapon, it's still opinion, right?

Or maybe this is a stupid idea and we should accept that historical sciences are more than just opinion?

By my count this is the eighth reason given on this thread as to why accepting Creationism would lead to the collapse of society (the previous seven being famine, animal testing, rate of oil production, methods of finding oil, nuclear power, climate change and new evolution-based technologies).

There is no us.

Sooo to whom am I communicating?

I can see where you're coming from, but I personally don't give a damn about sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc but yet I could, and have been, attacked still for my belief irrespective of that.

I don't expect nor do I ask anyone to convert to my ways of thinking in terms of religion/faith, neither do I expect the law to change into my way of thinking in terms of my faith - but inspite of that I have been (and probably still will be) demanded to 'defend' my faith.

Well, we all get screwed over one way or the other. Even despite that I don't care about people's religious beliefs, they still try to instill it with the power of law.

It sucks, but meh.

no, i'm saying that even if the sorts of foods primates like were instinctual (which is ridiculous on its face), there could not be such an instinct within chimps towards bananas because chimps evolved into chimps without any bananas around. you are proposing the independent origin of a very complex genetically fixed response in hundreds of independent chimp lineages.

You realize that chimps continue to evolve? However, it's really neither here nor there.



the public checking of methodology and results is an inherent and vital part of science, full stop. if this is not being done, then it is not science. it may be scientific, but without the communal aspect it just fails to be science.

Oh, the old real Scotsman fallacy. You are factually incorrect. No one would deny that science happens that is wildly valuable to the world at times when such things are or were impossible. To pretend that science stops because someone becomes geographically or historically isolated is unsupportable. However, I would love to see your evidence.

Meanwhile, the Mayans were checking one another's methodology. They did have a community. And it worked. There predictions are still accurate. They gathered hundreds of years of data and produced a theory that was utterly and demonstrably supported.


we are not talking about public consumption of scientific ideas when we say that science is self-correcting. what we are saying is that one of the things that distinguishes science from other possible processes for generating knowledge-claims is that it has this self-checking feature as part and parcel of what it is to be science. if it didn't, then we would have significantly less reason to trust the objectivity of science over and above our own thoughts on how things are.

The self-checking has failed science in the past. Pretending as if it is the end all and be all of science is absurd. It is not what defines science. What defines science is methodology. The self-checking is to prevent non-science from being mixed in with science, but it's a verification, not the point.



the meaning of concepts

I accept that you have no answer. I know this works on others, but I recognize bad debate. Try validating your claims or drop them. You've not supported your claim in one way.



tell me what the scientific explanatory frameworks for the apparent motion of venus were. the closest you'll get to something scientific shows up with the greeks or the chinese, and maybe a few other cultures. but none of those sparked off something comparable to the melvin revolution. this strikes me as an intrinsically important difference

I'm sorry? Are you actually going to argue from ignorance here? You realize that's a fallacy. Their frameworks did not survive, but don't confuse that with not existing. Without proper methodology, there is absolutely no explanation for the accuracy of their predictions. What we do have is their recordings, their predictions and whether or not they were accurate. How do you explain this? Magic beans?


i am asking if you agree that there was something new and different to the melvin revolution. i see the melvin revolution as something other than just more of the same , a simple outgrowth of a natural human endeavor. if you do as well, then we must wonder what changed. i have explicitly told you what i think changed; science/melvin was born, the set of philosophical principles and social institutions necessary to do science were put forth and acted upon in a way that they just hadn't been previously (at least not fully enough to birth melvin earlier). and this is what participants in the melvin revolution themselves claimed was up, though the early ones retained significant loyalties to the older styles of learning and attempted to ground their ideas in the works of the ancients.

Keep calling it melvin. Like I said, I accept that you're ability to argue your point isn't strong enough to avoid fallacies.

However, you're wrong. You've not demonstrated any of this. I will return to this argument when you present evidence.

Start by disproving the idea that the Mayans performed science. It's currently accepted that they were exceptional astronomers and they made predictions that were incredibly accurate. Predictions that the Western world couldn't make without specialized equipment that they didn't have. They did with the strength of their calculations. It's wildly impressive and it's widely accepted to be good astronomy (since you like the scientific community so much).


thus we have francis bacon saying things like:

"Now that the errors which have hitherto prevailed, and which will prevail for ever, should (if the mind be left to go its own way) either by the natural force of the understanding or by help of the aids and instruments of logic, one by one, correct themselves, was a thing not to be hoped for, because the primary notions of things which the mind readily and passively imbibes, stores up, and accumulates (and it is from them that all the rest flow) are false, confused, and overhastily abstracted from the facts; nor are the secondary and subsequent notions less arbitrary and inconstant; whence it follows that the entire fabric of human reason which we employ in the inquisition of nature is badly put together and built up, and like some magnificent structure without any foundation. For while men are occupied in admiring and applauding the false powers of the mind, they pass by and throw away those true powers, which, if it be supplied with the proper aids and can itself be content to wait upon nature instead of vainly affecting to overrule her, are within its reach. There was but one course left, therefore — to try the whole thing anew upon a better plan, and to commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon the proper foundations."

and

"We have no reason to be ashamed of the discoveries which have been made, and no doubt the ancients proved themselves in everything that turns on wit and abstract meditation, wonderful men. But, as in former ages, when men sailed only by observation of the stars, they could indeed coast along the shores of the old continent or cross a few small and Mediterranean seas; but before the ocean could be traversed and the new world discovered, the use of the mariner's needle, as a more faithful and certain guide, had to be found out; in like manner the discoveries which have been hitherto made in the arts and sciences are such as might be made by practice, meditation, observation, argumentation — for they lay near to the senses and immediately beneath common notions; but before we can reach the remoter and more hidden parts of nature, it is necessary that a more perfect use and application of the human mind and intellect be introduced."

And? So your proof that science was born of philosophy is that philosophers said so?

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.

I see your quote and quote another philosopher. Quotes of philosophers obviously determines whether science is philosophy. Yup.



What other really obvious conclusions are you going to present to me? That Europe tended to be Eurocentric? Water is wet? Mud is a plaything of LG?

I'm going to invent breathing. I know people breath, but I'm going to define it as having to be accepted as breathing by peers. What will peers check for? Well, to make sure you're following a method of breathing that's existed since the dawn of man, but NOW we'll be checking to make sure.

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

No.

Should we be focusing on answering this question,

No.

or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Yes.

I will clarify this: There are several logical conclusions that follow from given facts. One of these is the correct one. The process that we go through to determine which is the correct one has elements of creativity, subjectivity and faith in it, even though it is designed to reduce all of these as much as possible.

Now, I say it's a short answer because the actual answer takes pages and pages of explanation.

Okay, I'm gonna cut this out, because if we can't agree on this, then everything else is pointless. I appreciate your work, and I'll go back and retrieve anything relevant when we've settled out that which sparked my objection. Fair?

Occam's Razor isn't a "creative leap". What prevents there from being multiple conclusions based on a set of data is Occam's Razor. Within the realm of science, it's the opposite of a Creative Leap is what occurs.

For example, here are several conclusions presented by Soheran.

Apples are tasty
Apples are tasty this month
Apples are tasty in scientific experiments
Apples are tasty in years that are multiples of four in scientific experiments.

"This month" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

"In scientific experiments" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

"In years that are multiples of four in scientific experiments" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

See, it's the term creative leap. It's an arduous process and CONCLUSION is at the end. At the point were there is a question as to the valid scientific conclusion, you're not done yet. When you actually reach a conclusion, there is only one. That's specifically what a conclusion means in science.

No faith. No creative leap. Just science.

EDIT: Let me state again. I'm not dropping your work. I read it. I think you make some good points even if we don't agree, but if we can't agree on what we're talking about, on what my specific objection was, anything else doesn't technically matter.

Okay, I'm gonna cut this out, because if we can't agree on this, then everything else is pointless. I appreciate your work, and I'll go back and retrieve anything relevant when we've settled out that which sparked my objection. Fair?

Occam's Razor isn't a "creative leap". What prevents there from being multiple conclusions based on a set of data is Occam's Razor. Within the realm of science, it's the opposite of a Creative Leap is what occurs.

For example, here are several conclusions presented by Soheran.

Apples are tasty
Apples are tasty this month
Apples are tasty in scientific experiments
Apples are tasty in years that are multiples of four in scientific experiments.

"This month" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

"In scientific experiments" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

"In years that are multiples of four in scientific experiments" is a creative leap. We have no data that supports this. Cross this one off. Creative leaps aren't allowed in conclusions.

See, it's the term creative leap. It's an arduous process and CONCLUSION is at the end. At the point were there is a question as to the valid scientific conclusion, you're not done yet. When you actually reach a conclusion, there is only one. That's specifically what a conclusion means in science.

No faith. No creative leap. Just science.

I don't see how "Apples are tasty this month" is a creative leap. If Apples are tasty" is generally true, then it's also true that "Apples are tasty this month".

It's a subset.

Okay, I'm gonna cut this out, because if we can't agree on this, then everything else is pointless. I appreciate your work, and I'll go back and retrieve anything relevant when we've settled out that which sparked my objection. Fair?

Totally fair. Thank you.

Occam's Razor isn't a "creative leap".

You are correct that OR is not a creative leap. It is a criteria or principle that we use to compare theories. It is not free of assumptions, though. When we apply OR, we are assuming that nature always chooses the simplest solution, even though there is no philosophical basis to think that.

What prevents there from being multiple conclusions based on a set of data is Occam's Razor. Within the realm of science, it's the opposite of a Creative Leap is what occurs.

For example, here are several conclusions presented by Soheran....See, it's the term creative leap.

I agree with you here. By applying this criteria (Occam's razor), we find that your theory is the best one in terms of parsimony and agreement with data.

This does not mean that I am incorrect when I claim that there are subjective elements in this process. To continue with the apple example, we have set up the paradigm so that only two of the usual criteria are being considered. Other criteria for determining which theory is the best are omitted. Why? At some point we must have decided that these two were the only important ones. Do we have some sort of logical basis for choosing these particular criteria and dismissing the others? Apparently not.

It's an arduous process and CONCLUSION is at the end. At the point were there is a question as to the valid scientific conclusion, you're not done yet. When you actually reach a conclusion, there is only one. That's specifically what a conclusion means in science.

Then I would reply that there can be no conclusions in science, as there will always be a question. Since all theories are tentatively held until a better one comes along, how do you ever get to a point when there are no more questions about the conclusion?

No faith. No creative leap. Just science.

Do you insist that these are mutually exclusive?

I don't see how "Apples are tasty this month" is a creative leap. If Apples are tasty" is generally true, then it's also true that "Apples are tasty this month".

It's a subset.

As a conclusion, it implies that next month might be different. It's potentially accurate, but not a valid conclusion since it's not supported by data.

The necessity to make a scientific conclusion actually fit Occam's razor is obvious.

It's why when someone says "You look pretty today" the answer is often "oh, and I didn't yesterday". As such, in conclusions superfluous information is left out. It's necessary to look at the implication of your statement. This month is not what you tested. What you tested was whether they were tasty. If you were testing this month, you'd have tested multiple months.

What's the difference? Language games aren't science. When you include "this month" in your conclusion, it's open to analysis. As Deus showed with the equation he linked, you'll have demonstrated a sampling of 1. Your data doesn't lead to the conclusion. Thus, it's rejected.

I know you're going to try some word games here, but I assure you, if you say "this month" or "all months" in a scientific conclusion, you better have some data showing you tested more than one month or your work will be rejected.

You are correct that OR is not a creative leap. It is a criteria or principle that we use to compare theories. It is not free of assumptions, though. When we apply OR, we are assuming that nature always chooses the simplest solution, even though there is no philosophical basis to think that.

Not necessarily: Occam's Razor is a principle regarding justified belief, not truth, and we can be justified in believing something even if it isn't true. The only assumption that Occam's Razor makes is that it is more reasonable to believe something which requires less leaps of logic; it makes no statements about veracity.

I don't see how "Apples are tasty this month" is a creative leap. If Apples are tasty" is generally true, then it's also true that "Apples are tasty this month".

It's a subset.

Nope.

"Apples are tasty" is a conclusion that can be drawn from "This apple is tasty." You know one piece of information about an apple, though again a larger sample size would be preferable.

However, you're given no information about the timing of the experiment, or what connection that might have to the general state of apples, and it would be a leap to attach any significance to the date and time in which the apple is eaten.

You are correct. I should have said "the way that we have applied OR in this particular situation, we are assuming that...", or some such thing.

Muwhahaha!!! Another victory for pedantry!!! :p

Not necessarily: Occam's Razor is a principle regarding justified belief, not truth, and we can be justified in believing something even if it isn't true. The only assumption that Occam's Razor makes is that it is more reasonable to believe something which requires less leaps of logic; it makes no statements about veracity.

You are correct. I should have said "the way that we have applied OR in this particular situation, we are assuming that...", or some such thing.

J, drop the condescending asshattery. the essence of our argument is that you think any and every inductive empirical idea is science and i hold that the term refers to the specific institutions and practices and philosophical groundwork that developed into and out of the scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries. this is not to deny that there are very important and significant precursors to that development, merely to say that they are not fully science.

a big part of my justification for this usage is that it was the scientific revolution that created 'modern science' (and modernity generally), and that this did not happen at earlier times. also, the people engaged in the 'new learning' themselves saw it as new and different - they said so themselves. surely you can agree that this is the case, right? that being so, what, on your conception of science, explains this? something changed, what was it?

or do you deny that there was such a thing as the scientific revolution altogether?

Totally fair. Thank you.



You are correct that OR is not a creative leap. It is a criteria or principle that we use to compare theories. It is not free of assumptions, though. When we apply OR, we are assuming that nature always chooses the simplest solution, even though there is no philosophical basis to think that.

As pointed out by Agenda, we do not. The reason for applying OR is not about simple it's about removing leaps of logic. Essentially, you're expected to have experimental data for every element in your conclusion. OR is just an easily applied rule that gets you there.

Don't get this confused with the way it is paraphrased, because it's not technically correct. OR says specifically "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". In other words, you may not include unnecessary elements in your conclusion.



I agree with you here. By applying this criteria (Occam's razor), we find that your theory is the best one in terms of parsimony and agreement with data.

This does not mean that I am incorrect when I claim that there are subjective elements in this process. To continue with the apple example, we have set up the paradigm so that only two of the usual criteria are being considered. Other criteria for determining which theory is the best are omitted. Why? At some point we must have decided that these two were the only important ones. Do we have some sort of logical basis for choosing these particular criteria and dismissing the others? Apparently not.

What other criteria? How poetic it sounds? Science is skewed towards the practical and all of it's rules are centered around this. It doesn't discount other valuations or deny them. It simply isn't science. It's not subjective. It's definitive. It's a discipline specifically defined. This doesn't mean that other disciplines don't exist or are less valid. You keep confusing the limitations of science with assumptions.

The fact that it's definitive is why I object to FS's claims. Philosophers simply defined science. They didn't create it. Any process that meets the definition, whether knowingly or not, is science. You don't have to go "I'm about to do science" to start or finish. And you don't assume that science is correct, only that it's practical. And that it's practical is not subjective. It's fact.

However, you didn't claim there were subjective elements to the "process". You claimed there were subjective elements to the conclusion.




Then I would reply that there can be no conclusions in science, as there will always be a question. Since all theories are tentatively held until a better one comes along, how do you ever get to a point when there are no more questions about the conclusion?

Um, no. The valid scientific conclusion doesn't mean it's absolutely true. I can declaritively and with utmost confidence conduct an experiment and give the conclusion and declare that my conclusion is a scientific conclusion. This says nothing about whether or not it will hold up under further experimentation.

You get confused by language. There will always be question as to whether my conclusion will hold up to further testing, but it's quite clear whether my conclusion is scientific or not.


Do you insist that these are mutually exclusive?

I insist that purpose of science is to remove faith and creative leaps from our practical understanding of the world. The definitive purpose of testing is to remove such things. Those things that include faith and creative leaps are predictions, something that occurs prior to a conclusion, rather than the conclusion itself. People get mixed up by the process, which is neverending, but by fact, each element has a very specific way of being applied. If you've got leaps, your conclusion is flawed.

It does not deny the existence of faith or need for it, but faith has no place in a scientific conclusion, nor does a creative leap.

As a conclusion, it implies that next month might be different. It's potentially accurate, but not a valid conclusion since it's not supported by data.

given that our data only extends to this month (this second, actually), the conclusion that excludes what the future will be like entirely is on inherently stronger empirical footing than a predictive one. it is actually backed up by the data, after all.

this is part of what makes successful predictive theories particularly epistemically compelling - they go beyond the data and guess what the next data will be, and are right.

J, drop the condescending asshattery. the essence of our argument is that you think any and every inductive empirical idea is science and i hold that the term refers to the specific institutions and practices and philosophical groundwork that developed into and out of the scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries. this is not to deny that there are very important and significant precursors to that development, merely to say that they are not fully science.

a big part of my justification for this usage is that it was the scientific revolution that created 'modern science' (and modernity generally), and that this did not happen at earlier times. also, the people engaged in the 'new learning' themselves saw it as new and different - they said so themselves. surely you can agree that this is the case, right? that being so, what, on your conception of science, explains this? something changed, what was it?

or do you deny that there was such a thing as the scientific revolution altogether?

I don't. I also don't disagree that it created modern science. I was actually trying to lure you into using the term. Any guesses to why the term includes "modern"?

Honestly, we're not as far apart as it might appear. And really there's not a lot of substance to the disagreement. I object to the wildly eurocentric idea that we could create something as profoundly important and practical as science when we've discovered civilizations conducting the exact practices eventually codified as science. There is no flaw in the method of observation, hypothesizing, predicting and concluding done by the Mayans or any number of ancient astronomers. Their efforts were practical and accurate and were so because of their use of the scientific method. That they used this information to decide when to attack other groups is obvious not scientific nor relevant. To deny what they did was science it to let the tail wag the dog. The codification of science was just so we could do things as effectively as that.

It can be evidence for a variety of potential theories, but that's why you predict outcomes using each hypothesis and test until all of them fail save one.

That never happens. Ever. Which is precisely why we can never prove anything, scientifically.

The difficulty is figuring out how we can get to the rough midpoint--enough support to trust in predictions, even if we don't have certainty.

You don't know Occam's razor?

Absolutely I do. Give me a solid epistemological basis for it. Why should we believe that the simplest conclusion is the right one? What compelling justification do we have for that? Why can't the universe be a very complicated, very variable entity with results that don't always cohere neatly?

Okay, this means that you'd have to test a variety of apples for tastiness. We've already done that.

"Apples are tasty" is a general statement. To prove it, we'd have to test it in every possible circumstance, taking into account every possible variable. That's impossible.

Now you added, "this month." So you have to test a variety of months or you cannot include this in your theory.

Why is this any less legitimate than my first proposal? We haven't tested multiple months; that means we just don't know whether this proposal or my first one is accurate.

Why should we suppose that the first one is right until shown otherwise? Why is "apples are tasty every month" any better than "apples are tasty this month" when the only data we have is for this month?

Your current evidence doesn't support this either.

My current evidence doesn't support any of the proposals I listed if you're looking for something decisive. That's the point. On the other hand, my current evidence also fits all the proposals.

On what basis do you suppose that one proposal is better than others? They all have parts that my evidence doesn't yet support. That's something that's necessary in a scientific theory--they have to make further predictions, otherwise they're useless and unscientific.

And they aren't equally valid.

No, they're not. We do, as a simple matter of fact, make all kinds of distinctions between theories. That's why science "works": that's why it generates conclusions we can actually use.

But when we do that, we do so, like I said before, on epistemologically "soft" bases. They don't have any rationally rigorous justification.

5. Apples are tasty because fairies piss in them.

Well, the problem with this one is that it's non-scientific: it's not falsifiable. How would you purport to test whether or not apples are tasty because fairies piss in them?

But yes, in principle, we could propose a theory that incorporates faeries and demons and whatever, as long as it fits the data and makes predictions, and the same issue would arise.

Any guesses to why the term includes "modern"?

because the term was already used to refer to everything from engineering to theology when science came into existence and appropriated the word for itself.

I object to the wildly eurocentric idea that we could create something as profoundly important and practical as science when we've discovered civilizations conducting the exact practices eventually codified as science. There is no flaw in the method of observation, hypothesizing, predicting and concluding done by the Mayans or any number of ancient astronomers. Their efforts were practical and accurate and were so because of their use of the scientific method. That they used this information to decide when to attack other groups is obvious not scientific nor relevant. To deny what they did was science it to let the tail wag the dog. The codification of science was just so we could do things as effectively as that.

if the islamic renaissance had pulled off their own scientific revolution rather than faltering as they did, then i would hold that they had invented science. if the mayans had moved beyond calendars and signs from the gods, i would hold that they had. it isn't a matter of eurocentrism, but of actually finally having all of the necessary components for science to come into being. so far as i can see, these various components have been being invented and rediscovered all over time and space. they each make good sense on their own, at least as good as the alternatives, so bright people keep coming back to them.

but what makes science special is its total worldview and supporting institutions, on top of making observations and predictions. it is only when you have the necessary shift in worldviews and the methodological system and the collaborative institutions that the science genie comes out of the bottle and results in, well, this.

i would actually prefer that all the component pieces had come together earlier. we might have avoided thousands and thousands of years of abject misery.

As pointed out by Agenda, we do not. The reason for applying OR is not about simple it's about removing leaps of logic. Essentially, you're expected to have experimental data for every element in your conclusion. OR is just an easily applied rule that gets you there.

Don't get this confused with the way it is paraphrased, because it's not technically correct. OR says specifically "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". In other words, you may not include unnecessary elements in your conclusion.

Can you make more of an effort to proofread your own posts? I'm having trouble deciphering your grammar.

Why do you choose the law of parsimony as a criteria with which to judge the relative worth of theories? You have stated that it is not because it more closely models reality, so there must be some other logical basis for it. I would like to know what that logical basis is. The reason I ask is this: I am claiming that the act of choosing OR as a criterion for determining the relative value of competing theories has subjective elements to it.

What other criteria?

Things like:


its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.
how congruent your theory is with other theories.
whether or not it is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
whether or not it makes testable predictions.
whether or not it is falsifiable.


For some reason, you only picked Occam's razor and agreement with data as the criteria by which we are to compare the competing theories. You left all these out, and these are all common criteria by which we judge the soundness of competing scientific theories. Why did you leave them out? I am suggesting that you left them out because you, like every other scientist, have subjective ideas about the relevant importance of these criteria.

Can you see how an empiricist and a rationalist would deal differently with these criteria? An empiricist would consider the 'agreement with data' as being more important. The rationalist would consider 'internal coherence and simplicity' as being more important.

However, you didn't claim there were subjective elements to the "process". You claimed there were subjective elements to the conclusion.

Show me where I said that.

Um, no. The valid scientific conclusion doesn't mean it's absolutely true. I can declaritively and with utmost confidence conduct an experiment and give the conclusion and declare that my conclusion is a scientific conclusion. This says nothing about whether or not it will hold up under further experimentation.

You get confused by language. There will always be question as to whether my conclusion will hold up to further testing, but it's quite clear whether my conclusion is scientific or not.

Then what do you mean when you said it is the only conclusion? Do you mean there is only one valid conclusion for each theory?

Can you make more of an effort to proofread your own posts? I'm having trouble deciphering your grammar.

Heh. No. I can't.

Why do you choose the law of parsimony as a criteria with which to judge the relative worth of theories? You have stated that it is not because it more closely models reality, so there must be some other logical basis for it. I would like to know what that logical basis is. The reason I ask is this: I am claiming that the act of choosing OR as a criterion for determining the relative value of competing theories has subjective elements to it.

It's not the first invalid assumption you've made in this thread, but it's the most glaring. I don't. I use all criteria, but I use it here because your claim was about creative leaps and OR deals with creative leaps. It limits everything extraneous. What is the value of this? Because absent that requirement, science allows leaps and becomes philosophy.

"Apples are tasty because fairies piss in them" is a valid theory without OR. It is falsifiable if it turns out apples aren't tasty. OR is what makes you test every element and prevents such things.

If it makes you feel any better, ignore the misunderstanding that the reason we do this is because of some value of OR and just consider it a need to not present a conclusion with any elements that have not been tested.

Now do I need to explain why the bolded is necessary?

I eliminated part of your reply (actually after I'd replied to it) because it was extraneous. The point is that I don't ignore those other things, they are just not relevant to your claim that conclusions include creative leaps.



Can you see how an empiricist and a rationalist would deal differently with these criteria? An empiricist would consider the 'agreement with data' as being more important. The rationalist would consider 'internal coherence and simplicity' as being more important.

Amusing. Are you claiming they are mutually exclusive? All of the elements have to met, not some of them. Not kind of. That you think that it can be subjective is a misunderstanding. It's the combination of the things you listed and several more that make a conclusion scientific. It's OR that makes a conclusion not include elements unsupported by data.

Show me where I said that.


There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

You weren't saying this about conclusions? Maybe you should have replaced conclusion with process. Because what you said is we subjectively choose conclusions, which isn't true. Subjectively means I would choose them differently than another scientist. I wouldn't. The rules apply to everyone the same, for practical reasons. That's the point of allowing review from other scientists, to ensure objectivity.



Then what do you mean when you said it is the only conclusion? Do you mean there is only one valid conclusion for each theory?

No. Jesus. Okay, since people need a class, let's begin.

I observe.
I form a hypothesis.
I make a prediction.
I test the prediction.
I form a conclusion. A valid conclusion.

That's it in its simplest form. Now if your area of research or testing is broad enough there are a number of conclusions you can draw because your data is varied, but for each set of specific data, there are not competing conclusions.

For example. Going back to Apples.

I collect the following data.

I look at 500 apples from 500 trees all from different points on the tree.

I find all of them are red. All of them are tasty.

Conclusions: Apples are red.
Apples are tasty.

Two conclusion, but only because I have two sets of data.

I have the set of flavor data that says they are tasty. Analyzed seperately.

I have the set of color data that says they are red. Analyzed seperately.

I don't say: Red apples are tasty?

Why because I've not tested this. I've not been given any indication that apples are tasty because they are red or that apples are red because they're tasty. The only relations between the two sets of data that i've established is that they are apples.

Now I may then repeat the process again and again. But at this point I've created a theory (technically). For public consumption we require that this theory be tested by others before it be considered a valid theory and your methodology will be analyzed. People will expand on your theory, make further predictions and hypothesis, but in it's simplest form, that's the process.

Yes. But we don't claim engineering or theology was invented at that time.

no, they were invented earlier.

Wow, now you're really wagging the dog. So science WOULD have been conducted if some philosophers had sat around and talked about it and codified. Because they didn't, science didn't start happening until some philosophers saw science happening and put it to paper.

it isn't about codification. it is about thinking up the necessary ideas and adopting them. and not just some of them, but the whole package.

because the term was already used to refer to everything from engineering to theology when science came into existence and appropriated the word for itself.

Yes. But we don't claim engineering or theology was invented at that time.


if the islamic renaissance had pulled off their own scientific revolution rather than faltering as they did, then i would hold that they had invented science. if the mayans had moved beyond calendars and signs from the gods, i would hold that they had. it isn't a matter of eurocentrism, but of actually finally having all of the necessary components for science to come into being. so far as i can see, these various components have been being invented and rediscovered all over time and space. they each make good sense on their own, at least as good as the alternatives, so bright people keep coming back to them.

but what makes science special is its total worldview and supporting institutions, on top of making observations and predictions. it is only when you have the necessary shift in worldviews and the methodological system and the collaborative institutions that the science genie comes out of the bottle and results in, well, this.

i would actually prefer that all the component pieces had come together earlier. we might have avoided thousands and thousands of years of abject misery.

Wow, now you're really wagging the dog. So science WOULD have been conducted if some philosophers had sat around and talked about it and codified. Because they didn't, science didn't start happening until some philosophers saw science happening and put it to paper.

Amusing. I'm not kidding. And I actually don't mean that as condescending. I actually laughed and if you'd heard it, you'd have laughed to. We can disagree, but you have to see how funny it is, that you're saying then didn't conduct science because their philosophers failed.

And similarly why not? We all find our own meaning to life(even if we don't all relaise that) Why not let just thought be your meaning?

It was satire, Peep.

Thought for its own sake was exactly what I was espousing, there is no book of Deutoronians.

I don't think anyone here is really managing to prove or disprove anything.

Instead of examining and poking holes in arguments for scientific or religious theories, people are just poking holes in eachother's reasons for believing one theory or another.

The fact of the matter, however, is that science has consistently managed to prove theories and dump those which don't work. Take your computer, for example. Created by scholars of science. And what has religion accomplished? War, death, suffering and control.

How about instead of arguing for or against science or religion, we argue the merits of the actual theories put forward by these groups?

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I haven't read this whole thread, and I'm not going to, either; but in answer to the above OP question:

If there is an omnipotent God with unrestricted powers, then producing Big Bangs whenever he feels like it and churning out one universe after the other should be one of his easiest exercises. Why do (some) theists have such a big problem with that? Or is their Godling not mighty enough to "bang" along?


Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Sounds like an idea. See above.

The fact of the matter, however, is that science has consistently managed to prove theories and dump those which don't work. Take your computer, for example. Created by scholars of science. And what has religion accomplished? War, death, suffering and control.

How about instead of arguing for or against science or religion, we argue the merits of the actual theories put forward by these groups?

While it would be nice if we could, we lack a controlgroup to determine the worth of religion. While it is easy to say that "religion caused the dark ages" we simply do not know what would have happened if religion had not been around.

Of course, that is not the same as saying religion must be good because it prevented untold horrors.

That never happens. Ever. Which is precisely why we can never prove anything, scientifically.

The difficulty is figuring out how we can get to the rough midpoint--enough support to trust in predictions, even if we don't have certainty.

No, you misunderstand. We never run out of hypotheses which are based on conclusions, but we definitely do get down to only one conclusion. If there are equally valid hypotheses, we don't accept one as true until the other is eliminated. And that is our conclusion.

For that reason, you can falsify a hypotheses by showing that another one fits the data better.



Absolutely I do. Give me a solid epistemological basis for it. Why should we believe that the simplest conclusion is the right one? What compelling justification do we have for that? Why can't the universe be a very complicated, very variable entity with results that don't always cohere neatly?

Hmmm... obviously you don't. You're repeating that tired and often misunderstood paraphrasing. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that you don't add in things you've not tested. I've quoted the actual OR above. It has nothing to do with whether the universe is complicated, it has to do with whether your theory has an elements that aren't necessary results of the data collected.


"Apples are tasty" is a general statement. To prove it, we'd have to test it in every possible circumstance, taking into account every possible variable. That's impossible.

No, you don't. That's not how science works. It's not only impossible. It's impractical. Science does not require that I conduct such a test. It requires I test enough to gain statistical relevance, as shown in Deus' reply earlier in the thread. That doesn't require all or even most.


Why is this any less legitimate than my first proposal? We haven't tested multiple months; that means we just don't know whether this proposal or my first one is accurate.

So? We don't have any reason to believe the month is relevant until you've tested it. The three additional items make great hypotheses to come from the original conclusion, but they are not valid conclusions until they've been tested.


Why should we suppose that the first one is right until shown otherwise? Why is "apples are tasty every month" any better than "apples are tasty this month" when the only data we have is for this month?

None are assumed. We have no reason to believe the month is relevant. You may assume that absent such criteria, that we mean every month, but the absense of saying it is significant. The point of leaving it out is that we're ignoring it.

There are several scientists here. I'm not alone. They'll be happy to help you understand the relevance.

FS has brought up a very good point about why the codification is useful. It has been. It's the reason why claims like yours fall flat on their face.



My current evidence doesn't support any of the proposals I listed if you're looking for something decisive. That's the point. On the other hand, my current evidence also fits all the proposals.

You don't get it. The current evidence doesn't falsify any of them. But the only one of them that has been tested is the general claim.

The testing of a hypothesis must be designed to test the specific elements of the hypothesis. Our tests didn't do that, so our conclusion cannot include those elements. People confuse a layman's conclusion and a scientific conclusion all the time. You most certainly are.

Every apple I taste tests the general tastiness of apples. In the equation presented by Deus, my sampling for that hypothesis is equal to the number of apples I've tasted.

In the equation, my sampling for a hypothesis that includes "this month" is equal to the number of months in which I've tasted apples.



On what basis do you suppose that one proposal is better than others? They all have parts that my evidence doesn't yet support. That's something that's necessary in a scientific theory--they have to make further predictions, otherwise they're useless and unscientific.

They all do. Only one of them has been tested. Only one of them started with the hypothesis "apples are tasty" and tested it. The tests would not be valid for the other three. Your sampling is too small.



No, they're not. We do, as a simple matter of fact, make all kinds of distinctions between theories. That's why science "works": that's why it generates conclusions we can actually use.

But when we do that, we do so, like I said before, on epistemologically "soft" bases. They don't have any rationally rigorous justification.

Unless you realize that every argument you've made has been based on your lack of understanding of the basic principles. You don't understand the implication of a scientific statement and how it is statistically justified. You've proven your familiarity with Occam's Razor resembles the claim that Newton said that the universe cannot get more complex. It's an oversimplification. Use the actual OR and not the paraphrase. The paraphrase is unclear. It has nothing to do with simple. It has to do with valid.


Well, the problem with this one is that it's non-scientific: it's not falsifiable. How would you purport to test whether or not apples are tasty because fairies piss in them?

According to you? Test if apples are tasty. You only have to test a part of your conclusion, obviously. I mean, I don't need to actually have a sampling for months to make conclusions about months. Every element of your conclusion has to be supported by your tests AND your theory must be falsifiable. That's the point.

I'll choose something more relevant to what you said. "Apples are tasty in a world with Christians in it." Good luck getting that conclusion published.


But yes, in principle, we could propose a theory that incorporates faeries and demons and whatever, as long as it fits the data and makes predictions, and the same issue would arise.

As long as every element of it is involved in the testing. A theory isn't a hypothesis. A theory is as a result of testing a hypothesis. So the data that comes from the tests must deal with every element of your theory. You propose tests for your hypothesis. Your theory is something you've already tested with tests that can be repeated.

You've not demonstrated the relevance of months but you imply they are relevant in your claims. You've not demonstrate the relevance of it having been tasted in a scientific experiment or on a leap year.

J, drop the condescending asshattery.
I missed this earlier. I love this comment. You wanna compare quotes. Don't be a hypocrite. I can be as ornery as I like. You can be as ornery as you like. But let's not act like you're generally Mother Theresa.

I've not flamed you. I recommend you avoid doing the same. Yeah?

given that our data only extends to this month (this second, actually), the conclusion that excludes what the future will be like entirely is on inherently stronger empirical footing than a predictive one. it is actually backed up by the data, after all.

this is part of what makes successful predictive theories particularly epistemically compelling - they go beyond the data and guess what the next data will be, and are right.

The predictions are not part of the theory. They are the results of theories. They HAVE predictive power. You take a theory. Make a hypothesis. Make predictions based on this hypothesis. And then test them.

I've given examples.

A theory that claims months are relevant without any evidence they are is faulty on its face.

No, I can't. I really don't care enough. I'm teaching you science. Any effort I can put on you is payment for the lesson. You're welcome.

You make it so I don't have to explain the scientific method for you, and I'll pay attention to my grammar. You first.

You know, I make an effort to be patient with you, despite your rudeness. And if you let go of the assumption that I cannot teach you anything about science, you might even learn something.

It's not the first invalid assumption you've made in this thread, but it's the most glaring. I don't. I use all criteria, but I use it here because your claim was about creative leaps and OR deals with creative leaps. It limits everything extraneous. What is the value of this? Because absent that requirement, science allows leaps and becomes philosophy.

You didn't use all the criteria in your apple analogy. You only discussed how your hypothesis was better in terms of parsimony, and you conceded that all the hypotheses were the same in terms of agreement with the data. You omitted any mention of the other criteria. All these other criteria also deal with creative leaps in the same way, by limiting them like OR, so that cannot be the logical basis for only using that criterion.

...If it makes you feel any better, ignore the misunderstanding that the reason we do this is because of some value of OR and just consider it a need to not present a conclusion with any elements that have not been tested...

To be honest, I think you are the one who misunderstood.

Amusing. Are you claiming they are mutually exclusive? All of the elements have to met, not some of them. Not kind of.

Do you really believe that every scientific theory meets all of these criteria? If you do, you're wrong. Often theories do not meet one of these criteria, or only partially meets them.

That you think that it can be subjective is a misunderstanding. It's the combination of the things you listed and several more that make a conclusion scientific.

So, when two competing theories both partially meet these criteria, but in different ways, how do you decide which is a better theory?

You weren't saying this about conclusions? Maybe you should have replaced conclusion with process. Because what you said is we subjectively choose conclusions, which isn't true. Subjectively means I would choose them differently than another scientist. I wouldn't. The rules apply to everyone the same, for practical reasons. That's the point of allowing review from other scientists, to ensure objectivity.

I don't know how you read that and assumed that I was talking about having leaps, assumptions, intuition, etc. in a theory. I thought I was being clear that the creativity, subjectivity, etc. was part of the process of forming the theory.

I claimed that there were subjective elements in how scientists arrive at conclusions. Each scientist interprets the data through their own paradigm, relying on assumptions and other theories, which inevitably results in some subjectivity when arriving at a conclusion. By having peer review, we have other scientists with different paradigms to also interpret the results and draw their own conclusions. This ensures that the conclusions are not biased by the partially subjective paradigm of any one individual scientist. That's the point of allowing review from other scientists, to ensure objectivity.

No. Jesus. Okay, since people need a class, let's begin.

I observe....People will expand on your theory, make further predictions and hypothesis, but in it's simplest form, that's the process.

Rather than repeating a simplistic explanantion of hypothetico-deductivism, could you just answer the question?

Start by providing a definition of 'conclusion'.

The way I see things, it is important for us to delve into our pasts and find how we came to be. Science should always be looking for answers, for science is a powerful tool that we can use to further benefit our present and future lives. So, in a way, the more we focus on science and research, the more we focus on enriching our present state.

However, the thing that bugs me the most is the fight between creationists and evolutionists (or any other group). People are free to believe what they wish. I feel that things would be better if people would just accept eachother as different and move on. Both creationists and evolutionists have the right to believe in their seperate theories.

I can't stop you all from arguing about it, but please, for the sake of all of us, try to be respectful of others' beliefs, even if they are opposite of your own.

You know, I make an effort to be patient with you, despite your rudeness. And if you let go of the assumption that I cannot teach you anything about science, you might even learn something.

Actually, you have an excellent point. I changed it before you'd posted this. It was exceptionally rude and you have my apologies.

I'll respond to the rest later, but I wanted to reply to this. You've never been that rude. It's one thing to be a bit snarky, as we all tend to do, but that was uncalled for.

You didn't use all the criteria in your apple analogy. You only discussed how your hypothesis was better in terms of parsimony, and you conceded that all the hypotheses were the same in terms of agreement with the data. You omitted any mention of the other criteria. All these other criteria also deal with creative leaps in the same way, by limiting them like OR, so that cannot be the logical basis for only using that criterion.

I don't agree. OR is specifically to address creative leaps. The other criteria address other flaws in theories.



To be honest, I think you are the one who misunderstood.

Well, hey, must be me, then. That's almost a full argument. Oh, wait... it's just a contrary statement.



Do you really believe that every scientific theory meets all of these criteria? If you do, you're wrong. Often theories do not meet one of these criteria, or only partially meets them.

Give an example. You're probably going to want to remember that it's best fit.


So, when two competing theories both partially meet these criteria, but in different ways, how do you decide which is a better theory?

Again, give an example. Be explicit. State your observation, your hypothesis, your test and your conclusion.


I don't know how you read that and assumed that I was talking about having leaps, assumptions, intuition, etc. in a theory. I thought I was being clear that the creativity, subjectivity, etc. was part of the process of forming the theory.

You were? Hmmm... one wonders why you were talking about conclusions from start to finish, then? You specifically talked about how we arrive and conclusions and suggested it was subjective. You've continued to claim that, but I've yet to see an example. Your only attempt required me to accept flawed methodology.

I claimed that there were subjective elements in how scientists arrive at conclusions. Each scientist interprets the data through their own paradigm, relying on assumptions and other theories, which inevitably results in some subjectivity when arriving at a conclusion. By having peer review, we have other scientists with different paradigms to also interpret the results and draw their own conclusions. This ensures that the conclusions are not biased by the partially subjective paradigm of any one individual scientist. That's the point of allowing review from other scientists, to ensure objectivity.

Each scientist doesn't exist in a vacuum and that's why it's a part of modern science. Peer-review isn't for the purpose drawing their own conclusions. It's for reviewing methodology.

Rather than repeating a simplistic explanantion of hypothetico-deductivism, could you just answer the question?

There is nothing hypothetical about my explanation. That's a specific description of the process. Are you claiming that process is not followed?

I demonstrated exactly how conclusions work. If you want to claim it's invalid, provide an alternate example. So far I've seen one and your methodology was provably flawed and I demonstrated why it was flawed. When I did you claimed it didn't matter. Present a case where your process isn't flawed that supports your claim.


Start by providing a definition of 'conclusion'.

Sure, as soon as you give me an example that supports your claim that I can't demonstrate a flaw in. Your turn.

So far, we got your tongue claim. It was flawed. Your sampling was one. It was not a valid conclusion. It was a great hypothesis for testing. But your conclusion has to be what you tested for, not what you're going to test for in the future.

Oh boy, another one of these threads.

Why is it 10/10 times this discussion is brought up by a christian?

Can you be happy with the casual indifference for once?

As a conclusion, it implies that next month might be different. It's potentially accurate, but not a valid conclusion since it's not supported by data.

The necessity to make a scientific conclusion actually fit Occam's razor is obvious.

It's why when someone says "You look pretty today" the answer is often "oh, and I didn't yesterday". As such, in conclusions superfluous information is left out. It's necessary to look at the implication of your statement. This month is not what you tested. What you tested was whether they were tasty. If you were testing this month, you'd have tested multiple months.

What's the difference? Language games aren't science. When you include "this month" in your conclusion, it's open to analysis. As Deus showed with the equation he linked, you'll have demonstrated a sampling of 1. Your data doesn't lead to the conclusion. Thus, it's rejected.

I know you're going to try some word games here, but I assure you, if you say "this month" or "all months" in a scientific conclusion, you better have some data showing you tested more than one month or your work will be rejected.

No word games. I'm just going to deny the existence of implication.

For that reason, you can falsify a hypotheses by showing that another one fits the data better.

There is no such thing as "fits the data better." Either something fits the data or it doesn't.

(Actually, let me amend that. It's possible to have theories that make predictions that aren't necessarily precise. In such a case, between two possibilities that can both be made to fit the data, one might fit "better." But our discussion has been about theories that predict the given data equally well.)

it has to do with whether your theory has an elements that aren't necessary results of the data collected.

There are no "necessary results of the data collected." There are different possible results whose only common element need be their prediction of the data we have. That's precisely the problem you're trying to evade.

Science does not require that I conduct such a test.

I know it doesn't. I was commenting on the limited nature of the test you proposed.

We don't have any reason to believe the month is relevant until you've tested it.

True. We also don't have any reason to believe the month is irrelevant until we've tested it.

Why should we presuppose one over the other?

We have no reason to believe the month is relevant. You may assume that absent such criteria, that we mean every month, but the absense of saying it is significant. The point of leaving it out is that we're ignoring it.

If "apples are tasty" is deliberately ambiguous so as not to move beyond the data, then it doesn't make any predictions. It doesn't help us do anything; it can't tell us whether the apple I pick up next month is tasty or not.

FS has brought up a very good point about why the codification is useful.

FS made an interesting point, but I don't think it's one that solves the problem... and his reasoning is not even close to yours.

But the only one of them that has been tested is the general claim.

No. They have all been tested. We know this because our results could have falsified any of them.

The testing of a hypothesis must be designed to test the specific elements of the hypothesis. Our tests didn't do that, so our conclusion cannot include those elements.

You're making a procedural point: if you set out to test a hypothesis, you want to test the specific elements within it (assuming that's possible). Fine with me. In your conclusion, of course, you talk about the hypothesis you tested and not the ones you didn't (set out to) test.

But that does not let us conclude that our hypothesis is "right" or more valid than any of the other possibilities. All it lets us conclude is that the data (so far) supports it.

Every apple I taste tests the general tastiness of apples.

Every apple you taste tests the tastiness of apples right this second in this place at this moment for you specifically, and so forth with all the variables we can imagine.

Of course, it also tests any variation of those variables... for instance, an apple eaten right now would test the general tastiness of apples (variables ignored), the tastiness of apples eaten on Tuesday (one variable included), the tastiness of apples after 6:00 PM (a different variable included), and so forth.

They all do. Only one of them has been tested. Only one of them started with the hypothesis "apples are tasty" and tested it. The tests would not be valid for the other three. Your sampling is too small.

Okay, I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Your problem is that you're making a crucial omission: you're failing to understand the nature of general statements.

Perhaps a better example here is the law of gravity. The law of gravity doesn't explicitly mention month, location, or any of a wide series of variables... but it does talk about them implicitly. It states that they don't matter, that the only factors affecting the gravitational attractive force between two objects are their masses and the distance between them.

That's why the law of gravity is useful to us: we can make predictions from it that we can trust to hold in cases other than those we've experimented on (because we can judge the differences to be irrelevant.) That's the utility of a scientific theory.

If we ignore the artificial distinction between "implicit" and "explicit", it's clear that just as with any potential variant theory, there are "specific elements" to it we haven't tested. Most elementarily, all our data for gravity is from 2008 or before. We have no data for 2009. But the law of gravity makes no distinction based on year, and as long as we recognize its predictive force (as we do), we can't just claim that "we say nothing about 2009 until it comes."

Now, imagine a rival theory of gravity comes to the fore that divides time into segments. All time until a certain point this year (say, June 5, 2008) is the first segment, with a certain rule of gravity. After that point, a different rule comes into effect. We can even imagine a set relation between the segment of time and the gravitation rule.

This theory is, of course, wildly implausible... but it fits the data, and while it has a specific element that hasn't yet been tested ("Gravity will change after June 5, 2008"), so does the conventional one ("Gravity won't change after June 5, 2008").

Furthermore, our sample size is the same. In both cases, we have data for one segment of time that fits the rule. Not a very good basis for extrapolating through eternity.

You've proven your familiarity with Occam's Razor resembles the claim that Newton said that the universe cannot get more complex.

Actually, I was proposing that as a possible explanation for Occam's Razor... not as a statement of the principle.

I mean, I don't need to actually have a sampling for months to make conclusions about months.

No, you actually don't. If you did, science would be impossible. We can never account for every variable. And we routinely feel free to ignore lots of them.

To borrow your next example: "a world with Christians in it" is a potentially relevant variable that probably has never been tested for relevance. But I bet that if a bunch of atheists went on a spaceship to another planet, they wouldn't suddenly be uncertain about the validity of every physical law discovered in the past two thousand years.

So we come to a conclusion about worlds without Christians without having a sampling of worlds without Christians. And no one objects and says it's unscientific.

I'll choose something more relevant to what you said. "Apples are tasty in a world with Christians in it." Good luck getting that conclusion published.

I'd be laughed out. That's "plausibility" for you. ;)

So the data that comes from the tests must deal with every element of your theory.

This is clearly not true. We have theories that have "elements" we haven't tested. That's why they're predictive. That's why they're falsifiable. That's why they're useful.

Of course, you can define "element" in a way that makes your statement work, but not in such a way that the conceptual problem is avoided.

You've not demonstrated the relevance of months but you imply they are relevant in your claims. You've not demonstrate the relevance of it having been tasted in a scientific experiment or on a leap year.

That's true. I haven't demonstrated the relevance of any of those things. But I also haven't demonstrated their irrelevance.

You want to default to "irrelevance." You're of course right that that's what we typically do. But it's not something we have any rationally rigorous justification for.

I don't agree. OR is specifically to address creative leaps. The other criteria address other flaws in theories.

This sentence only makes sense if you have specific definition for 'creative leaps'. I was defining creative leaps as all subjective, intuitive, creative and irrational elements in the process of formulating hypotheses an dtheories. How are you defining it?

Give an example. You're probably going to want to remember that it's best fit.

The Galileo example upthread. I am not reposting my quotes for a third time in this thread.

Again, give an example. Be explicit. State your observation, your hypothesis, your test and your conclusion.

So you can't answer the question. Okay.

You were? Hmmm... one wonders why you were talking about conclusions from start to finish, then? You specifically talked about how we arrive and conclusions and suggested it was subjective. You've continued to claim that, but I've yet to see an example. Your only attempt required me to accept flawed methodology.

So, no definition of 'conclusion' yet. Though I 'm supposed to keep debating with you about conclusions, because you claim that I'm talking about them. Even though I've made it clear that I think we are using two different definitions of 'conclusion'

I have an idea. Why don't you tell me what you think I am arguing?

Each scientist doesn't exist in a vacuum and that's why it's a part of modern science. Peer-review isn't for the purpose drawing their own conclusions. It's for reviewing methodology.

So, it's just an awfully convenient coincidence that if scientists are interpreting data through a partially subjective matrix, peer review would ensure that the bias does not get included in the conclusion?

There is nothing hypothetical about my explanation. That's a specific description of the process. Are you claiming that process is not followed?

I didn't say your explanation was hypothetical. I said it was an explanation of hypothetico-deductivism.

What I am looking for is a definition of 'conclusion' that satisfies your claim that there can be only one valid logical conclusion for a set of data. You have yet to provide this.

I demonstrated exactly how conclusions work. If you want to claim it's invalid, provide an alternate example.

Actually, you skipped over that part in your example. It's hard to decide if something is invalid or not from this:


I observe.
I form a hypothesis.
I make a prediction.
I test the prediction.
I form a conclusion. A valid conclusion


...and this...

For example. Going back to Apples...


...I look at 500 apples from 500 trees all from different points on the tree. I find all of them are red. All of them are tasty.
???????????
???????????
???????????
Conclusions: Apples are red. Apples are tasty.

Two conclusion, but only because I have two sets of data.

Yeah, I think your explanation could use some work. Especially the part about how you formed the conclusions, and why there can be only one for each data set.

So far I've seen one and your methodology was provably flawed and I demonstrated why it was flawed. When I did you claimed it didn't matter. Present a case where your process isn't flawed that supports your claim.

I did. You ignored them in favour of discussing a point about the apples was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The confusion arises in your idea that I made some sort of specific claim. At this point, I am not at all confident that you know what my argument actually is.

A few quick questions...

Do you know what underdetermination is?
Are you familiar with the Duhem-Quine thesis?
Have you heard of Popperian falsification?
How about phrases like theory-laden data, and paradigm-laden theory?

This sentence only makes sense if you have specific definition for 'creative leaps'. I was defining creative leaps as all subjective, intuitive, creative and irrational elements in the process of formulating hypotheses an dtheories. How are you defining it?

I define "creative leaps" as when goats climb mountains by the seaside while the sun rises.

Or perhaps, at creative leap already has a definition and we don't get to redefine arguments after we've made them for a day. Creative leaps are those things that are not evidenced. You can keep arguing about what the definitions of words are, but in relation to science the words that make it up only work one way. There aren't 8 different definitions for scientific conclusions.

As far as your "example" of Galileo. Galileo did not propose the heliocentric unverse. Copernicus did. You have an actual specific example? So far we've got an example that doesn't understand sampling and one that never happened. Galileo SUPPORTED Copernicus' theory, but it was proposed by Copernicus. Galileo tested the predictions that resulted from that theory by making observations with his telescope and it conviced him that Copernicus was correct. Oops.

I'll wait for a real example. An example of multiple valid theories. The heliocentric universe wasn't equally valid. It was in direct contradiction to the geocentric universe and testing by both Copernicus and Galileo demonstrated it's validity.

I do find it interesting that you'd be unscientific enough to claim that irrational elements have anything to do with science. You honestly think you can ascribe irrational elements to conclusions? Hmmm... I'm still waiting for an example.

That said. I really can't bring myself to reply anymore, and I want to warn you ahead of time. I do promise to read your reply. Not because of you. I'll be honest. Much of what you, FS, and Soheran have said has been interesting. What Llewdor has to say is nonsense, but that's pretty standard. I'm not going to buy into it mostly because I've been dealing with science and engineering for 15 years, but it's interesting. It truly is. And lot of parts of the argument are well made. Others are fallacies (don't worry, I know we're not going to agree on that part either). I truly hope that you give an explicit example of your claim. You've claimed repeatedly several things about conclusions. Regardless of how I define a conclusion. Regardless of how I define a creative leap. You should be able to show observations, a hypothesis, tests, and how the results formed multiple conclusions that were weedled down using "subjective, intuitive, creative and irrational elements". Because you didn't "kind of" claim that. You explicitly said that "creative leaps" are how we go from multiple conclusions to a specific conclusion. I'm asking you for a single example. One. Nothing I've said. Nothing I believe changes what that example would look like. Please make it a proper and specific example including the the conclusion, how and what the creative leap was that got the specific conclusion and why you think it was necessary.

I'm embarrassed about earlier. The truth is that I've got professional issues that are making me crazy and I'm not going to press on when it's just going to make me behave in a way I'll have to apologize for later.

I assure you that my behavior was not due to any frustration with any among the denizins of NSG. So take the last swipe and I'll see y'all when this passes. Good luck and God bless.

There is no such thing as "fits the data better." Either something fits the data or it doesn't.

Then you aren't talking about science. There certainly is. You've never heard of "best fit"? I know you want to turn this into a philosophical debate, but frankly, you're not actually talking about anything substantial at all. It's plenty interesting, it's just woefully incorrect. I've actually passed your claims onto some of the scientists I used to work with. They found it interesting too. I promise.

Ask Dem to pop in if you're unsure. Or Deus. Or Bottle. Or anyone else with a background in the sciences. You proposed hypotheses. Everyone one of them will tell you that you cannot conclude that month is relevant without testing it as you admitted. As you've also concluded, we don't conclude it's irrelevant. We simply leave out of the conclusion altogether. We'll likely include in a hypothesis later, so that we may test it, but it's impractical to include elements we don't know to be relevant in conclusions.

But here is the only relevant point to pulled from your post.

All it lets us conclude is that the data (so far) supports it.

If you can show anyone claiming otherwise, Deus will appear at your house naked. I have connections.

No, serioulsy, that's the point. The data (so far) supports it. That's an element of every scientific theory ever. It's doesn't claim future data won't.

You want to talk about the value of knowledge, what value does including the element "on planets where there are Christians" add to our conclusions? Because every test ever performed on earth, which is nearly every test ever performed, may have that element. Tell me why it's useful to include irrelevant parts (not to accept they exist because no is deny that they both exist and are possible, but to include them). Because once you accept they add value, then they'll always be there. And if they don't add value, no new knowledge is provide with just extraneous nonsense, then they are dropped out for consistency. There is also the fact, that without OR and falsification in conjunction, there could be any number of unscientific, and thus impractical, conclusions.

As far as further replies or the brevity of this one, I addressed it in my post to GoG.

No word games. I'm just going to deny the existence of implication.

Yes. I deny the existence of a point.

You've never heard of "best fit"?

Yes. A different meaning in a different context. What I meant, and put clumsily, was that among theories that explain the existing data equally well (which, after all, is the case we're discussing), there is no standard we can use for "better" or "worse" fit. The other predictions the theories make are not relevant to the question of whether or not they fit the existing data.

I know you want to turn this into a philosophical debate,

That's impossible. It already is a philosophical debate. We're arguing about the nature of the justification for the scientific methodology, not about particular scientific conclusions.

Scientists have never had a monopoly on philosophy of science, any more than politicians have had a monopoly on political philosophy.

(Philosophers, on the other hand, have the privilege of controlling philosophy of philosophy. :))

You proposed hypotheses. Everyone one of them will tell you that you cannot conclude that month is relevant without testing it as you admitted. As you've also concluded, we don't conclude it's irrelevant. We simply leave out of the conclusion altogether.

Fine. Keep your conclusions ambiguous. And don't trust that the law of gravity holds tomorrow.

No, scientists--perhaps not always while admitting to themselves--come to conclusions about relevant and irrelevant variables without testing them all the time. Indeed, that's a necessary condition of inductive reasoning. It's required to come to meaningful, useful scientific conclusions at all. To trust in predictions (not necessarily to know, but to have a reasonable positive belief) we must trust that some variables are irrelevant. Cases are always different, and it's both practically and theoretically impossible to test every variable in the necessary manner.

You want to talk about the value of knowledge, what value does including the element "on planets where there are Christians" add to our conclusions?

Well, it could be very useful if we ever went to a planet where there weren't any.

The utility of scientific theories--in the relevant sense of whether or not they count as science--is always theoretical.

Is this one fun?
I'm undecided on it, and i'm not sure if i should have faith that it is or if i should go with knowledge on it.

Bear with me Cabra.

So what would you say your personal meaning of life is? Or do you even have one, is life meaningless to you?

I don't think I have one, sorry.
I live, I enjoy as much as possible while causing not too much damage, I'll die.

How about instead of arguing for or against science or religion, we argue the merits of the actual theories put forward by these groups?Religion does not put forward theories. It puts forward doctrines.

It was satire, Peep.

Thought for its own sake was exactly what I was espousing, there is no book of Deutoronians.

Meh, end of the day and all that!:D

I don't think anyone here is really managing to prove or disprove anything.

Instead of examining and poking holes in arguments for scientific or religious theories, people are just poking holes in eachother's reasons for believing one theory or another.

The fact of the matter, however, is that science has consistently managed to prove theories and dump those which don't work. Take your computer, for example. Created by scholars of science. And what has religion accomplished? War, death, suffering and control.

How about instead of arguing for or against science or religion, we argue the merits of the actual theories put forward by these groups?

Heh that is surly what debate is about though huh, a thinly disguised way to attack anothers core belifes and belitte each other?

So you want to start doing the same but placeing vaule judgments on 'merits' or otherwise of each belife system?

What criteria do you suppose we are all going to agree on as a mesurement of this vaule judgement?

I don't think I have one, sorry.
I live, I enjoy as much as possible while causing not too much damage, I'll die.

So you are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?

Sorry I just don't belive that, and you a parent too.

So you are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?

Sorry I just don't belive that, and you a parent too.Procreation is not a meaning. It's biology.

Procreation is not a meaning. It's biology.

Thats not where I was headed.

Thats not where I was headed.

Lead us to your destination then ;)

Because flies are cute :)Like these?

http://www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg/mid/3U120.jpg

These are the golden flies of queen Ahhotep, as medals for military achievements.

ORDER OF VALOR
This necklace, with three pendants in the form of flies, was given to queen Ahhotep by her two sons Kamose and Ahmose in gratitude for her supportive role during the struggle for liberation against the Hyksos. The presence of this type of gold jewellery, which corresponds to a military decoration bestowed upon military leaders for their courage in the battle field, is unique in a queen's collection. It is made of stylized flies formed of plaques of gold with two bulging eyes and an open work body.

Lead us to your destination then ;)

Why is your real name Beelzebub?

Why is your real name Beelzebub?

Because flies are cute :)

Lead us to your destination then ;)

In the fullness of time, I'm awaiting Cabra's answer.

Although on a side note why we wait, we can certianly say that the porpouse of life is life itself, if we mean life as a force. What I'm getting at is the personal porpuse us humans attribute to our lives.

Hedonistic procreation, or the pursuit of the requirements of such?

For the christ god said, work the land, but go forth and FILL the land.

So you are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?

Sorry I just don't belive that, and you a parent too.

I'm not even quite sure what you mean by "meaning of life", sorry.

In the fullness of time, I'm awaiting Cabra's answer.

Although on a side note why we wait, we can certianly say that the porpouse of life is life itself, if we mean life as a force. What I'm getting at is the personal porpuse us humans attribute to our lives.

Life as a force? You've lost me there, I'm afraid.
And I don't attribute any purpose to my life, I just live it. I'm trying to live it in a way that will allow me to get the most pleasure out of it (both in an active way, as in me experiencing physical pleasure, and in a passive way, as in me being happy for the pleasure others feel), while causing the least possible harm to myself and others.
So, if you want to get spiritual, my purpose is to maintain balance *ॐ*

You don't understand the following sentance?

'You are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?'

If I say to you so your life is meaningless, you don't understand what I am asking?

All life is meaningless.
We simply assing moral value to certain aspects and elements of life (human rights, animal rights, etc.), but those are just our own definitions based on empathy.

I'm not even quite sure what you mean by "meaning of life", sorry.

You don't understand the following sentance?

'You are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?'

If I say to you so your life is meaningless, you don't understand what I am asking?

bla bla bla bla!!

bla bla bla bla!!

Whoa, i was just reading that in the bathroom at the mall! :eek:
Creepy.

Thought for its own sake was exactly what I was espousing, there is no book of Deutoronians.What about Neutoronians? As in, a few of the uber-religious folk should've been neutered way back when?

Whoa, i was just reading that in the bathroom at the mall! :eek:
Creepy.

then it must be a sign for you that it's time to adopt cynicism!!;)

So you are clear that these things do play a role in the formation of a theory.

I snipped all the stuff about testing a theory, as that only applies after the theory was formed, and I'm not really discussing that.

Right, because that sinks your argument, and we can't have that, can we?

Dude, totally, its already happened.

On a thread a ways back, Corneliu 2 went on for like 5 pages totally buying a clearly satirical position as genuine, even when half a dozen other posters had already openly applauded the satire and sarcasm.

I even had Knights of Liberty for a post or two.

People just don't read the whole post, and I think that's what makes it easy.

Either that or the fact that we've had people on the forum who at least seem to actually believe crap that's just as ridiculous as the stuff you come up with.

OK. My last post on this stupid thread. It. Does. Not. Matter.

This is the worst kind of argument online. Everyone has their own opinion. If this really does not affect us, why bother with this stupid thread? It'll just end up being "GaH yuo iz teh stewpid die rihgt now u stupid :upyours::headbang::mp5:"

If you're so bothered by this thread, why'd you bother posting in it in the first place?

I assume that your hypothesis is: the apples have the quality of being tasty.

You make the assumption that the quality of tastiness is in the apple, rather than in your tongue. I will make the opposite assumption.

GoG's hypothesis: My tongue makes apples tasty.

I go and eat apples from each tree. Tasty. My hypothesis is now a theory. Evidenced.



Except you didn't try to test for other variables, which using your example would include eating the apples without your tongue. :p

I write ONE wrong word and I'm not taken seriously already?
How nice! Oh wait, you're just trying to look smart and superior.
Some people are actually kind and sweet and correct me in a non jackass way.
Thank you anyway I'll share my ideas with my CAT.

I would like to see you learning portuguese without taking any classes and without going to a portuguese-speaking country. :mad:

Recognizing people's efforts would be nice instead of putting your fingers in their eyes.

Welcome to NSG, where everybody is a jackass at times. ;)

Seriously though, people with low post counts and horrible grammar tend to be ignored. Now, with having pointed out that English is self-taught and a second (or third or fourth, whatever) language those of us who remember will usually give you more leeway.

Religion shouldn't be discussed between people who disagree badly, because it always ends in...


this.
:sniper:

:headbang:

:gundge:


:rolleyes:

What's the point of discussing things only with people who agree with you?

So you are telling me that you have found no meaning in your life?

Sorry I just don't belive that, and you a parent too.

Why do you feel that life has to have some greater meaning? Also, why do you find it so hard to believe that others don't feel the need for life to have a greater meaning?

I'm not even quite sure what you mean by "meaning of life", sorry.

42?

i don't get it... why are there so many people trying to discover something they can not discover?? ever?? this debate is pointless... it is based on beliefs that are too personal for each and every person to be changed by a simple internet thread... instead of wasting your time here go out and make offsprings... as far as i can tell that's the only thing we are sure that we should do with our time on earth...:D

i don't get it... why are there so many people trying to discover something they can not discover?? ever?? this debate is pointless... it is based on beliefs that are too personal for each and every person to be changed by a simple internet thread... instead of wasting your time here go out and make offsprings... as far as i can tell that's the only thing we are sure that we should do with our time on earth...:D

We are not all sure of that.

then it must be a sign for you that it's time to adopt cynicism!!;)Cynicism got soured on my ample milk and ran away. :(

What's the point of discussing things only with people who agree with you?Religion? :p
Word.

Since I'm an Atheist, I think people should always search for the answer to everything.My problem with some religious people is they're always telling you your going to go to Hell because you don't believe in a omniscent dictator god.Even though I don't believe in Hell,it's very annoying.And for that reason none of my family knows I'm atheist(exept my Mom,Dad,and Brother).They also have this "I know everything" complex in their personality that really gets on my nerves.In my opinion religions are archaeic and should've died out eons ago.

Since I'm an Atheist, I think people should always search for the answer to everything.My problem with some religious people is they're always telling you your going to go to Hell because you don't believe in a omniscent dictator god.Even though I don't believe in Hell,it's very annoying.And for that reason none of my family knows I'm atheist(exept my Mom,Dad,and Brother).They also have this "I know everything" complex in their personality that really gets on my nerves.In my opinion religions are archaeic and should've died out eons ago.


Heh I see they have passed certian parts of their personalites down to you then!

So they should have died out before they even existed?that would have been best, yes. ;)

Since I'm an Atheist, I think people should always search for the answer to everything.My problem with some religious people is they're always telling you your going to go to Hell because you don't believe in a omniscent dictator god.Even though I don't believe in Hell,it's very annoying.And for that reason none of my family knows I'm atheist(exept my Mom,Dad,and Brother).They also have this "I know everything" complex in their personality that really gets on my nerves.In my opinion religions are archaeic and should've died out eons ago.

So they should have died out before they even existed?

We are not all sure of that.

well then... we should deduct that you must be, by definition, sterile!

Since I'm an Atheist, I think people should always search for the answer to everything.My problem with some religious people is they're always telling you your going to go to Hell because you don't believe in a omniscent dictator god.Even though I don't believe in Hell,it's very annoying. bla bla bla.In my opinion religions are archaeic and should've died out eons ago.

allow me to cut! i don't know about you guys, but i really don't see how a timeless being with unlimited knowledge and powers would make something as stupid as a human being as the highest form of intelligence anywhere... let's face it... we are not that great as biological beings... most people are not very smart as individuals... and does it even matter if some god created us out his perverted imagination or we are here just by chance?

So they should have died out before they even existed?

it would have saved us all a bunch of time. besides, if the gods (and therefore their religions) can have existed for all time, why not likewise the lack of them?

Heh I see they have passed certian parts of their personalites down to you then!

Screw you man!lol!:D

Religion? :p
Word.

LOL

Since I'm an Atheist, I think people should always search for the answer to everything.My problem with some religious people is they're always telling you your going to go to Hell because you don't believe in a omniscent dictator god.Even though I don't believe in Hell,it's very annoying.And for that reason none of my family knows I'm atheist(exept my Mom,Dad,and Brother).They also have this "I know everything" complex in their personality that really gets on my nerves.In my opinion religions are archaeic and should've died out eons ago.

Apparently you think your space bar is archaic as well.

RhynoDD;13501813']Apparently you think your space bar is archaic as well.

Yup,I sure do.

Yup,I sure do.

Well it's not! It needs love just like any other key on your keyboard! Just because it's old and has...troubles...you know...that doesn't mean it doesn't have feelings!