The Scientific Method -- is there such a thing?

[studiot]

13 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

"Rubbish, there are plenty of useful statements that can be made about something non existent."

 

I said nothing about "useful". Here's what I said again that you responded to: "Nothing true can be said of a non-existent entity, except perhaps that it doesn't exist."

 

I've numbered your five examples for convenience.

 

The predicates true and false apply only to "assertives", i.e., statements, or as I noted earlier, propositions, to be more precise.

 

For example: "Tokyo is the capital of Canada" is a statement, thus "truth-evaluable" (as they say), and in this particular case we would assign it a value of "false".

 

The predicates true/false do not apply to other speech acts, such as commissives (e.g. "I promise to love you forever") and directives (questions, commands, etc. E.g "Please open the door", "How old are you?"). We say they are not truth-evaluable. They may have conditions of satisfaction (in John Searle's jargon) -- they can be satisfied or not -- but the predicates true/false do not apply.

 

Of the five "statements" you listed, only the first is a statement, thus truth-evaluable. Your (2) - (5) are questions (thus directives), not statements. The question of truth/falsity, therefore, does not arise.

 

So we only need to consider (1). Now, given that "it" doesn't exist, then nothing true can be said of it. This is entirely uncontroversial. What's disputed is whether the (conditional) statement should be assigned a value of false, or neither true nor false. As I noted earlier, depends who you ask. Russell, for example, endorses the former; Strawson, for example, endorses the latter.

 

 

 

Rather than castigate me for attempting to examine your particular brand of logic and philosophy, perhaps you should apply it to your own work.

 

In your opening post you assterted the non existence of 'the scientific method', thereby in your own view removing any possibility of making a true (or false) statement about the method, however defined.

So this entire thread is pointless and you are just prolonging it for the sake of argument.

 

 

And it seems to be going round and round in circles, wandering further and further off topic.

Therefore it must be time to drop the final curtain.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

So this entire thread is pointless and you are just prolonging it for the sake of argument.

I think "Reg" has read the introductory chapter of a book on philosophy or rhetoric and uses some of the words he found to make pointless arguments. Or is just a fan of the Monty Python "argument" sketch (but nowhere near as entertaining).

Just now, Strange said:

I think "Reg" has read the introductory chapter of a book on philosophy or rhetoric

"No I didn't"

[Reg Prescott]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

In your opening post you assterted the non existence of 'the scientific method', thereby in your own view removing any possibility of making a true (or false) statement about the method, however defined.

 

That's quite correct. If I'm right, and it is indeed the case that there is no such thing as The Scientific Method, then nothing true can be said of it, with the possible exception of the statement "TSM does not exist". (See, you've learned something from the thread already)

 

(This is the mistake you were making in your logic earlier: attempting to attribute properties to non-existent entities. Non-existent entities do not have any properties, therefore the attempt to attribute properties where there are no properties is kinda futile.)

 

The thing is, many people do believe in the existence of TSM, and who knows, they might even be right. Hence the debate, hoping to bring some measure of clarity to the issue one way or the other.

 

Lavoisier felt the same way vis-à-vis phlogiston as I do about TSM. So, like any good seeker of truth, he presented his arguments for his own view, and against those of his opponent, poor old Joseph Priestly.

 

And guess what? Progress was made. 

 

Perhaps, in our own modest way, we can do the same here. If that's ok with you?

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

(See, you've learned something from the thread already)

 

(This is the mistake you were making in your logic earlier: attempting to attribute properties to non-existent entities. Non-existent entities do not have any properties, therefore the attempt to attribute properties where there are no properties is kinda futile.)

Please don't try to put false words I didn't utter into my mouth, or worse, false thoughts into my head.

 

I simply chose not to bandy further words with you.

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Please don't try to put false words I didn't utter into my mouth, or worse, false thoughts into my head.

 

Here's exactly what you said earlier: "If it doesn't exist it has exactly zero mass"

Now, if it is indeed the case that "it" doesn't exist, then it is not tall, it is not short, it is not red, it does not wear frilly knickers, it does not weigh 5kgs, and it does not weigh 0kgs.

"It" has no properties whatsoever.

Geddit?

[studiot]

The trouble with trying to be a clever clogs is that it is all too easy to outsmart yourself, which is what you have done here.

[Reg Prescott]

Dude, you've made one silly claim after another. When I pointed them out, you got irascible. You even generously invited me to "go to hell" at one point. Discerning readers may have noticed I turned the other cheek.

What do you want from me: to nod and smile at your absurdities?

Edited October 6, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

When I pointed them out

All you have pointed out is that you don't understand the difference between mass and weight.

 

12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

it does not weigh 5kgs, and it does not weigh 0kgs.

 

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, studiot said:

All you have pointed out is that you don't understand the difference between mass and weight.

 OMG!!! That's makes all the difference!!!!!

[studiot]

Well yes of course it does, especially as this is a Science site, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 OMG!!! That's makes all the difference!!!!!

!

Moderator Note

It's pretty clear you aren't here to learn the way everyone else is, and would rather soapbox your misunderstandings. Please read the guidelines for posting before opening any more threads.

 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Is a concept part of reality? I'd say so.

 This does indeed get tricky. Statements about unicorns, if taken literally, and granting they do not exist, are uniformly assigned a value of false. This much is uncontroversial

But they exist as a concept, and you have just agreed that concepts are part of reality, so I do not grant that they don't exist. And neither do you, apparently.

Quote

 However, you did claim that science does not tell us about reality ("But if you mean they tell you what reality is, then no. Science doesn't do that.") as if this were a universal position held by all scientists with the implication, "ask any scientist and they'll tell you the same thing".

No.

You agreed I am entitled to my opinion. I don't find it reasonable to extrapolate that anyone would claim that an opinion is something to which you could apply "ask anyone and they will agree"  — unless you didn't actually know what an opinion is. You also seemed to agree to my statement that Weinberg is entitled his opinion, but do not seem to hold him to the same standard you are holding me to in regard to my statement. Why is that?

 

edit: seems that this was locked while I was composing my reply. Oh, well.