Jump to content
Reg Prescott

Science, truth, and knowledge

Recommended Posts

@Reg Prescott

There are absolute truths and relative truths.

If somebody says "Earth exists", "Moon exists", "Sun exists", "Earth is orbiting around the Sun", "Moon is orbiting around the Earth".

In you interpretation of truth, these are absolute truths.

But billions years ago, there was no Sun, no Earth, no Moon. They didn't exist and could not orbit around their partner in star system.

Billions years from now also, Earth and Moon will be vaporized, Sun will be destroyed.

So you see that physical statement has only sense in particular period of evolution of the Universe, or other physical system.

These statements are true at the moment, later will be no more true.

Experimental physicists are working with closed physical systems, to limit variables which influence result of experiment to absolute minimum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

Earth, Solar System, Galaxy are not closed systems, so they're influenced from cosmic space (and particles arriving from other stars and other cosmic objects).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrP said:

It could be that I am still missing your point... or just failing to see it's worth.  

 

Will all members who think they're brains in vats, or victims of a Cartesian demon, please raise their hands.

Ok, leaving them aside, let us proceed...

The position is known as radical skepticism: all we can have knowledge of is the contents of our own minds -- if that! I have no disproof. I don't think anyone else does either. It's just a position I don't think ought to be taken seriously. Do you?

Still here? Since you don't believe you are a brain in a vat, we can start talking about knowledge of external reality. Presumably we can know about things like rocks and chairs and other inanimate objects like Robert Mitchum.

Still with me? Perhaps after a few gin & tonics for Dutch courage we can muster the cojones to start talking about scientific knowledge....

Edited by Reg Prescott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DrP said:

Personally I don't really care as it seems so blindingly obvious. How can you really know anything? I do not believe I am a brain in a jar....  but I don't think I can prove it. Maybe you can tell us how to prove it if you have studied philosophy.

To me - when people start asking 'How can you know you are not just a brain in a jar receiving external stimuli which makes you believe you live in the real world?' I think it is a waste of time talking to them..

Yup +1

 

Oh, and by the way, Reg

Are you frightened of my examples?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

There are absolute truths and relative truths.

If somebody says "Earth exists", "Moon exists", "Sun exists", "Earth is orbiting around the Sun", "Moon is orbiting around the Earth".

In you interpretation of truth, these are absolute truths.

 I don't use the term "absolute truth" (Zosimus does, though). To me propositions are simply true or false.

 

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

But billions years ago, there was no Sun, no Earth, no Moon. They didn't exist and could not orbit around their partner in star system.

Billions years from now also, Earth and Moon will be vaporized, Sun will be destroyed.

So you see that physical statement has only sense in particular period of evolution of the Universe, or other physical system.

These statements are true at the moment, later will be no more true.

 We covered this a few pages ago. 

I agree these statements will no longer be true. But the propositions expressed by the statements will be. Zosimus calls such things "absolute truths". I call them true propositions.

The propositions expressed by many statements are "indexed" to the time, place, person of utterance. For example the statement "I am hungry" if uttered by you right now expresses the proposition "the utterer [i.e. you] is hungry at this particular time". 

That proposition, if true now, will still be true tomorrow whether you're hungry or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The propositions expressed by many statements are "indexed" to the time, place, person of utterance. For example the statement "I am hungry" if uttered by you right now expresses the proposition "the utterer [i.e. you] is hungry at this particular time". 

That proposition, if true now, will still be true tomorrow whether you're hungry or not.

1

not if I'm lying.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

To me propositions are simply true or false.

 

So you should have no trouble answering my two polite propositions as true or false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

not if I'm lying or mistaken.

Interesting point, but I don't think the condition of the utterer affects the truth value of the proposition any more than the conditions (eg timing) of the utterance.

I agree with Reg here.

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

Then the proposition you expressed is false.

except to be strictly pedantic the truth value is unaffected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is eise's "see1, see2"; the truth is both, depending on the argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 7:43 PM, Reg Prescott said:

This all sounds confused to me, ALine. Is it your position, then, that prior to the discovery of the planet Uranus, say, it did not exis

My position is that this arguement is pointless for the fact that by defining a God like entity you are defining an absoluye observer which is why they define him as being, "everywhere at ome time." If you accept this model then the arguement ends there. If something is observing everything then that would mean that everything is always known as has always been there due to him having observed it. So no amount of reasoning can go against an arguement such as this due to a God being all observing so everything would always exist even if no one is around to observe it. If you deny this model then there is no absolute observer which means that everything become uncertain if you are no longer observing it. If you accept the model set by religion then there is always an observer and everything is known due to that observer being in every dimension including time. If you deny the model set by religion then there are only observers when those observers "exist." These observers being humans. If we do not observe it then it does not exist. Therefore it up to the individual who wishes to choose between either of these models to decide which they prefer. So it all comes down to a matter of choice between ideas. Your choice is for you to decide and not for others to decide for you. Thats it. These seperate ideas do not mix because they are seperate in nature. One is neither correct nor in correct, they simply are.

On top of this the arguement which is used are themselves meaningless, where logic is a construct used to understand what we understand. Any and all concepts which we create and assume not to create may simply be a resultant of observation and the comparison between previous observations with current observations. Even if you say you do not argue against the concept of a God, the mear mentioning of him, any and every attempt to communicate with him is therefore invalid due to the use of an observed concepts of him existing. Going back to my initial arguement, an individual cannot define something as being an absolute, even something as being analogous to being an absolutes absolute because for something to be considered "real", in any case, it must be observed. Now if you are describing a feeling as being a God then there is no problem in this. However making a blanketing statement, in general, such as "something is real for everything and exists in all things" is a BIG problem. You, at this point in general, are defining an absolute truth without observation. This goes against what truth IS and its designed objective in general. Redefining it for a specific instanc3 does not change its agreed upon definition. Changing it only adds confusion. And even if you do not change it, in general, using the statements of other who have changed it, no matter how influential, does not change the agreed upon definition unless everyone agrees to it.

Edited by ALine
Had to fix some spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Appeal to Authority is when someone uses their authority in one field in another unrelated field.

Oh, okay. So if an expert in his field says something, then it's automatically true.

 

So the top expert on Mormon writings is Hugh Nibley (or was... I think he's dead). So here's an expert in the field:

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/hugh-nibley

I’ve been collecting some marvelous stuff on Joseph Smith recently. I could say my testimony gets stronger every day. These scriptures are true; they are real.

 

Well, there you have it. An expert on Mormon scriptures assures us that they are both true and real. I guess we have to accept that as truth, right? Because Appeal to Authority is (according to you) only when someone uses his authority is one field in another unrelated field.

 

Well! Get me a temple pass, some magic underwear, and a second wife. I'm convinced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg said:
"How much knowledge has science produced about the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies, the planets?
How much knowledge has science produced about evolution?
How much knowledge has science produced about atoms and molecules?
How much knowledge has science produced about anatomy, the brain, medicine?
... the denier of truth, on pain of inconsistency, must answer: "Zilch! Zero! Nada! Not a jot! Absolutely none!"."

7 hours ago, DrP said:

Do you still stand by this statement of yours that science has provided us with zero knowledge of the above topics?   How you can claim that science has given us no knowledge of atoms is baffling.  (unless by your wording 'the denier of truth on pain of inconsistence must answer zero' you mean that we actually HAVE learnt a lot from science - the wording is confusing  -  put it plainly - have we learnt knowledge of things from science? - I would say clearly we have.)

DrP reply really summed up how some philosophers and some philosophical statements are just plain out of this world. 

I have given definitions of science, knowledge and truth...I stand by them and rebuke the total unnecessary pedant that one or two students of philosophy are raising for nothing more then to be contrary and attempt to reflect some non existent wisdom. 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, beecee said:

And it gets more and more right as our observations improve. I see no progress though in your continued obtuseness and misunderstandings. Scientific truth remains as determined by observation under the auspices of the scientific method.

Again, you claim that knowledge comes through science but you spout a bunch of nonsense as "knowledge" but when challenged to provide a scientific backing for it, you have nothing.

20 hours ago, beecee said:

Nonsense. The observations of Jupiter and its moons showled that everything does not revolve around the Earth and lead to the heliocentric model.

Showled and lead... interesting. Well, as I have pointed out, Tycho Brahe's model was the one that everyone was using. Galileo and Copernicus had nothing. The best Galileo could say was, "Our system is simpler" to which the natural philosophers said, "So you've eliminated some epicycles. Yet, you have the moon's orbit around the Earth on an epicycle. Why is that?" And Galileo didn't know what to say.

20 hours ago, beecee said:

It is scientifically adequate and correct when used in its zone of applicability, as per all scientific models including GR.

I'm really not interested in your philosophical clap trap. My claims stand and are generally accepted by scientists. 

I'm pretending nothing other then your inadequate attempted use of philosophy to attempt to invalidate science, the scientific methodology, and progressive scientific truth. Keep trying.

No, I think you're missing out on the whole point of the conversation. On my side, we have logic (deduction and math) and on your side you have inductive logic. My claim is, as it has always been, that math and logic call science into question. Your answer has been a faith-based assertion that science is self-correcting. Don't you have anything to back up your claims other than quoting journalists?

20 hours ago, beecee said:

If you chose to ignore history and logic in favour of your hairy fairy philosophical learning, then I certainly understand why Krauss and Hawking took your nonsense to task....Note carefully, I don't denigrate all philosophy'just that as preached by yourself and another on this forum and the fact that even you two cannot agree....

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". :Henry Louis Mencken

Actually again you fail to see. Science itself shows its own errors when relevant and is self correcting. Not interested in discussing any non scientific myth though.

I fail to see how logic and math are non-scientific myths.

20 hours ago, beecee said:

let's actually start where you are again wrong. Plenty of experiments starting with Focaults pendulum. I suggest you now start to stop trying to defend your silly philosophical stance against the practical application of science and the scientific method.

So? I'm not prejudiced against any religious person, despite your own prejudices against the scientific discipline for having disposed of ID as unnecessary, and superfluous. Not sure why you find that an issue really.

Oh for Christ's sake stop being so silly and pedantic. You know exactly what I'm inferring and mean and what I said.

Is obtuseness a staple requirement of philosophy? Again science has been practised for eons, despite not being called scientists or philosophers. I suggest at this time, along with your other obvious agendas, that you look up the definition of science. 

As I have already pointed out, science as we know it was invented in 1933. And the word scientist was coined in 1834. I certainly understand your need for historical revisionism to try to pretend that all discoveries made were made by scientists. Unfortunately, it's just not true. 

20 hours ago, beecee said:

Yeah sure:rolleyes:, and as I have already said, that also is the general view held by many who chose mystical, mythical beliefs over science, the scientific method and the knowledge that goes with it. The scientific methodology is the most logical system available and I doubt if it will ever be improved upon.

False dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Again, you claim that knowledge comes through science but you spout a bunch of nonsense as "knowledge" but when challenged to provide a scientific backing for it, you have nothing.

Science is knowledge my friend and that is painfully obvious to anyone not carrying some agenda.

Quote

Showled and lead... interesting. Well, as I have pointed out, Tycho Brahe's model was the one that everyone was using. Galileo and Copernicus had nothing. The best Galileo could say was, "Our system is simpler" to which the natural philosophers said, "So you've eliminated some epicycles. Yet, you have the moon's orbit around the Earth on an epicycle. Why is that?" And Galileo didn't know what to say.

You get a point for spelling Brahe correctly...To say Galileo and Copernicus had nothing is really the height of ignorance. [or simply just defending an indefensible position]

Quote

No, I think you're missing out on the whole point of the conversation. On my side, we have logic (deduction and math) and on your side you have inductive logic. My claim is, as it has always been, that math and logic call science into question. Your answer has been a faith-based assertion that science is self-correcting. Don't you have anything to back up your claims other than quoting journalists?

Wrong again. maths and logic are part and parcel of the scientific methodology while at the same time ensuring the continuing gathering of knowledge.

Quote

I fail to see how logic and math are non-scientific myths.

I didn't say that. That is simply you being obtuse.

Quote

As I have already pointed out, science as we know it was invented in 1933. And the word scientist was coined in 1834. I certainly understand your need for historical revisionism to try to pretend that all discoveries made were made by scientists. Unfortunately, it's just not true. 

Rhetoric, useless rhetoric. It does not invalidate my claim and fact that science has been practised by mankind for eons. No pretense needed.

 

Quote

False dichotomy.

No absolutely correct...Let me sum it up for you, with relation to the thread subject....Science is knowledge, and any supposed truth may be unobtainable but is not the goal of scientific theory. That just about says it all, not withstanding the usual babble of philosophical ramblings, similes, metaphors and general confusion. Professor Krauss hit the nail fair square on the noggin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

A few cheery remarks inspired by reading through the posts above...

 

Here Zosimus alludes to Carl Hempel's notorious "raven paradox". The uninitiated will no doubt find it explained on Google, and the problem it raises for any account of evidence and confirmation in science, namely, granting two rather innocuous assumptions [ (i) any instance of an F that is G constitutes confirming evidence for the hypothesis "all Fs are G", and (ii) any evidence that confirms a hypothesis H also confirms any hypothesis logically equivalent to H] we derive the disturbing conclusion that almost any observation constitutes evidence for almost any hypothesis. Hardly a trivial result!

You are right. I was alluding to Hempel's Raven Paradox.

19 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:


Given the overriding importance assigned to "evidence" by our members in appraising scientific claims to truth and knowledge, Hempel's paradox is ignored at one's own peril.
Lacking any understanding of what evidence is in science, and exactly how it serves to support a theory or hypothesis (if indeed it does at all - Zosimus is skeptical), a "We have lots of evidence" defense is hardly superior to "It's all in scripture".

 

Zosimus, cogent and intelligent argumentation notwithstanding, takes skepticism further than I'd be willing to go myself, though his presence here, in my opinion, constitutes a sorely needed corrective to the wildly inflated and frequently ill informed hyperbole of those raised on self-congratulatory Whig history of science and the simple-minded Dawkins/Krauss type pablum obediently and uncritically consumed by those who prefer their portraits wart-free.

 

On a different note, to the myth of "the scientific method" we may now add the legend of the "unique self-corrective mechanism" of science often alluded to implicitly or explicitly.


First, there is no unique "mechanism" of self-correction, that I'm aware of anyway. When scientists come across something they consider to be an error they amend it. Far from being unique, that puts them on a par with pretty much every other institution and individual on the planet.

On this matter I must part company with my esteemed colleague. Science does have a self-corrective mechanism. As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

With that in mind, I'd like to salute the scientific progress made on March 14, 2018. Now that Hawkins is dead, science might actually progress a bit.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Claims are only preposterous if and when they have absolutely no evidence to support said claim

Since have you advanced no evidence to support the above claim, I consider said claim preposterous.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

...On that score they remain simply speculation, hypothesis. eg: ID. Evidence backed claims that make successful prdictions...eg: the BB, GR, are scientific claims and scientific truth in relation to those claims and their zones of applicability.

Again truth is neither here nor there and not the goal of scientific theory.

That's just as well because there are zero known true scientific theories.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Creationists though while denying scientific theories and models, based on observational evidence and the scientific method, then through probable brain washing as a kid, accept without question some unsupported, unevidenced, and superfluous deity of one sort or another.

The theory of the evolution of life over the big  generally well understood picture would be around 99.99999% certain...the smaller details of the process I'm unable to determine.

I'm going to echo the previous sentiment mentioned above: Show your work. If you really think that evolution is 99.99999% true, I'd like to see exactly what calculations you went through to arrive at that number.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

In other words if the vast bulk of evidence supports a theory, it is safe to accept it as scientific truth.

I notice that you made no comment on the vast bulk of evidence supporting the theory that Dawkins doesn't exist. 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

:D Oh brother! If there is no evidence to support any proposition it will never become a scientific theory and probably lost in oblivion.

Correction...What makes any proposition scientifically true is when it has a preponderance of evidence supporting it. You can never be aware or no if you have ever uncovered any possible truth, particularly as most who push this idea actually mean...the mythical ID nonsense.

Therefore, your opinion is that Copernicus theory that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe was not scientifically true at the moment he made it because there was no preponderance of evidence supporting it?

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Sensei (post directly above)

 

This is all very confused and contains misrepresentations of my position that I'll leave aside for now. I asked a simple question, which I'll repeat here: 


"What do YOU think I see when there's a bona fide lemur sitting in front of me?
(My own answer, to repeat, is that I see a lemur).

The closest I can find to an answer in your most recent reply is "interactions of photons with matter/antimatter/particles" and "Human eye is observing photons", in the case of watching TV.

Is this your answer? When there's a lemur in front of me I see photons?

I still say I see a lemur. I'm fairly sure I've never seen a photon in my life. Not so long ago people like yourself would have been telling we lemur lovers that what we actually see is corpuscles, not lemurs. Turns out -- according to received wisdom nowadays -- corpuscles don't exist. Whoops! 


What if 23rd century science decides photons don't exist either? Do you grant this as a possibility? If so, given that, on your account, all I see when I point my head towards a lemur with my eyes open is photons, we'd have to conclude that I'm seeing ... nothing!

If photons go, lemurs go! 

Deforestation worries notwithstanding, seems to me lemurs have a better chance of making it to the 23rd century than the notoriously ephemeral postulates of physical theories.

Now, photons may indeed be impinging on my nervous system, as you suggest, in virtue of which I am able to see that lemur. Assuming the reality of photons, without their striking my retina I would be unable to see that lemur. You continue, though, to merely give me an explanatory account, which may or may not be true, of how I am able to see the lemur. Nothing you have said poses any threat to my claim that what I see is a lemur. To be frank, the suggestion that what I'm seeing is photons is ... crazy! I like you already :wub:

To explain all this satisfactorily would entail a lengthy excursion into human intentionality in general, and the intentionality of perception in particular. Perhaps some other time...

For now, though, another question: What do you think my fellow lemur enthusiasts will say a few weeks from now if I ask them, "What do you see?"

"Interactions of photons with matter/antimatter/particles" ?

If you believe in science, then you believe that what you think you see is not actually what you see. Rather, your brain is guessing what the world will look like in 0.7 seconds because that's how long it takes for your visual cortex to transmit those signals to your brain for action. Were it not so, we would be unable to catch a ball thrown at us for we would "see" it 0.7 seconds behind where it actually is.

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, that's a start. What a relief too!

By the way, do you regard "[They are] used by every programmer few, few hundred, or thousand times per day" to be a true statement?

Why is everyone so terrified of truth??!! Aaarrrggghhhh!!!! 

Can you even imagine going through life without speaking of truth? Might make a good party game. First person who uses the word "true" or "truth" has to chug a beer.

Betcha it'd be a very short game.

True dat.

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Will all members who think they're brains in vats, or victims of a Cartesian demon, please raise their hands.

Ok, leaving them aside, let us proceed...

The position is known as radical skepticism: all we can have knowledge of is the contents of our own minds -- if that! I have no disproof. I don't think anyone else does either. It's just a position I don't think ought to be taken seriously. Do you?

It's not a question of the truth or falsehood of the claim but rather whether that information is relevant.

Imagine, for example, that you have been dating a girl for a few weeks. You like her and she seems to like you. She has suggested that you get together at a hotel this weekend. We can imagine what is likely to happen there.

Suddenly, someone appears and proves to you that you are actually just a brain in a vat. That 'girl' doesn't exist. She is a neurochemical illusion generated by scientists trying to understand the brain better.

Would that knowledge make you change your mind about going to a hotel with her? Cuz it wouldn't dissuade me in the slightest.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Science is knowledge my friend and that is painfully obvious to anyone not carrying some agenda.

No, science is a process that can produce false output even when all inputs are true.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You get a point for spelling Brahe correctly...To say Galileo and Copernicus had nothing is really the height of ignorance. [or simply just defending an indefensible position]

The first indication that anyone had that the Earth moved even in the slightest was the discovery of Stellar Aberration by James Bradley in the 1720s. Copernicus died in 1543. Galileo died in 1642.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Wrong again. maths and logic are part and parcel of the scientific methodology while at the same time ensuring the continuing gathering of knowledge.

Wrong. Math and logic both predate scientific methodology. Neither is inductive. Neither is experience based. Neither can be experimentally falsified. 2+2 = 4 even beyond the event horizon of a black hole or at a very high relativistic speed..

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I didn't say that. That is simply you being obtuse.

Rhetoric, useless rhetoric. It does not invalidate my claim and fact that science has been practised by mankind for eons. No pretense needed.

Another claim for which you have no scientific evidence.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No absolutely correct...Let me sum it up for you, with relation to the thread subject....Science is knowledge, and any supposed truth may be unobtainable but is not the goal of scientific theory. That just about says it all, not withstanding the usual babble of philosophical ramblings, similes, metaphors and general confusion. Professor Krauss hit the nail fair square on the noggin!


No, knowledge is justified true belief. Science is a process that yields false results more often than true ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

On this matter I must part company with my esteemed colleague. Science does have a self-corrective mechanism. As Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

With that in mind, I'd like to salute the scientific progress made on March 14, 2018. Now that Hawkins is dead, science might actually progress a bit.

And highlighting one of my favourite quotes again..you know the one about Philosophers always calling each other jackasses and showing themselves to be jackasses as well...or words to that effect. And admirably highlighted in the second paragraph re Hawking...please note Hawking,  not Hawkins. Doubly stupid in actuality as Professor Hawking's credentials and work is there for all to see with some as yet to  be positively revealed...that being Hawking radiation of course. Or is this simply another philosopher that has nothing more to add so intentionally goes out of his way to try and create more controversy? Childish? yeah but in this case probably true.

Quote

Since have you advanced no evidence to support the above claim, I consider said claim preposterous.

Do I really need to?  OK, how about ID? quite preposterous and no evidence what so ever....

Quote

That's just as well because there are zero known true scientific theories.

That maybe what someone who has a habit of being obtuse and  misinterpreting philosophical jargon  may mean...It certainly is not the view held by science and knowledge and what the scientific method dictates. Again, the theory of evolution is undeniable.

Quote

I'm going to echo the previous sentiment mentioned above: Show your work. If you really think that evolution is 99.99999% true, I'd like to see exactly what calculations you went through to arrive at that number.

Your the one making ridiculous anti science claims and questioning evolution a near positive scientific fact...the onus is on you to show scientifically why or how evolution is not what scientists agree upon. Obviously you can't and more obviously you won't.

Quote

I notice that you made no comment on the vast bulk of evidence supporting the theory that Dawkins doesn't exist. 

I won't even attempt any comment on such nonsensical philosophical crap. Really matey, this is primarily a science forum...you need to do a lot better.

Quote

Therefore, your opinion is that Copernicus theory that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe was not scientifically true at the moment he made it because there was no preponderance of evidence supporting it?

Your usual useless philosophical clap trap to avoid actual scientific truth and its application is outstanding. Copernicus as a scientist [by any name you wish] studied planetary motion as did Galileo. They along with Brahe moved us out of the geocentric, religiously bound model that previously existed. The scientific truth was hindered in that respect for a period. Yet its worthwhile mentioning that both the old geocentric model, as well as the flat Earth model have been used and are still used in various disciplines even today. So much for your deep philosophical truth as opposed to scientific truth. 

Please also check out the meanings and definitions of the words in relation to this thread's subject matter...science, knowledge and truth.

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, beecee said:

 

In other words if the vast bulk of evidence supports a theory, it is safe to accept it as scientific truth.

 :P

Thousands of years of scientific evidence proves beyond a doubt that the term 'scientific truth' is at such severe odds with itself that it defeats itself at every new and conclusive discovery.  In fact, 'scientific truth' may be the origin of the word, 'sleuth:'  to take the scent of and then run headlongingly excited and baying like a hound straight into a large Oak.  Derived somewhat from the olde Englitchgermanormandutchviking languatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Thousands of years of scientific evidence proves beyond a doubt that the term 'scientific truth' is at such severe odds with itself that it defeats itself at every new and conclusive discovery.  In fact, 'scientific truth' may be the origin of the word, 'sleuth:'  to take the scent of and then run headlongingly excited and baying like a hound straight into a large Oak.  Derived somewhat from the olde Englitchgermanormandutchviking languatch.

The greatest advantage of science, and the  knowledge that goes with it, is that it is not incalcitrant and changes and advances as observations improve. To deny that, or argue against that, is weird to say the least...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth

"Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..."

 

Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality.

Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Another claim for which you have no scientific evidence.


No, knowledge is justified true belief. Science is a process that yields false results more often than true ones.

A typical troll, doing exactly what he accuses someone else of doing.

 

Where is your evidence for your underlined words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Where is your evidence for your underlined words?

Stochastically it may be actually be correct as generally there is only one  (or a limited set of complementary) true findings and virtually unlimited false ones. I would maintain that the overall methodology works better in practice than alternative approaches, especially those that are resistant to weeding out incorrect assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, beecee said:

The greatest advantage of science, and the  knowledge that goes with it, is that it is not incalcitrant and changes and advances as observations improve. To deny that, or argue against that, is weird to say the least...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth

"Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..."

 

Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality.

Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

If Aristarchus had not been exiled mankind might have been on the moon 1,000 years ago.    Scientific truth may advance, but the weight of Consensus most often banishes it to a dank cell until those holding the consensus can understand what the person in the dank cell has discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

And highlighting one of my favourite quotes again..you know the one about Philosophers always calling each other jackasses and showing themselves to be jackasses as well...or words to that effect. And admirably highlighted in the second paragraph re Hawking...please note Hawking,  not Hawkins. Doubly stupid in actuality as Professor Hawking's credentials and work is there for all to see with some as yet to  be positively revealed...that being Hawking radiation of course.

Hawking radiation — isn't that the proof that black holes don't exist? Somehow the rest of science never took notice.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Or is this simply another philosopher that has nothing more to add so intentionally goes out of his way to try and create more controversy? Childish? yeah but in this case probably true.

Do I really need to?  OK, how about ID? quite preposterous and no evidence what so ever....

Why are you so desperate to change the subject? What's wrong with the one we're on?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

That maybe what someone who has a habit of being obtuse and  misinterpreting philosophical jargon  may mean...It certainly is not the view held by science and knowledge and what the scientific method dictates. Again, the theory of evolution is undeniable.

Another desperate attempt to change the subject. Yet I could have sworn that the topic of this thread is science and whether it leads to truth and knowledge. Obviously, the answer is no. The simple fact that 80 percent of non-randomized studies (the most common type of studies) are later convincingly refuted shows that at least 80 percent of scientific findings are false. That number could easily be 100 percent. You have no way of knowing.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Your the one making ridiculous anti science claims and questioning evolution a near positive scientific fact...the onus is on you to show scientifically why or how evolution is not what scientists agree upon. Obviously you can't and more obviously you won't.

No, I'm not talking about evolution at all. I'm talking about math and logic vs. science in an attempt to find truth. You are desperately trying to turn the conversation into something that it isn't. If you want to talk about the philosophy of evolution, go right ahead — in another thread. This one is not the right thread for that.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I won't even attempt any comment on such nonsensical philosophical crap. Really matey, this is primarily a science forum...you need to do a lot better.

No, this is a philosophy forum. If you want to talk about religion or biology, there are forums for that on this very website. You are welcome to go to either of those forums and discuss non philosophical matters. I won't stop you.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Your usual useless philosophical clap trap to avoid actual scientific truth and its application is outstanding. Copernicus as a scientist [by any name you wish] studied planetary motion as did Galileo.

No, both Copernicus and Galileo were mathematicians. Copernicus was a good one. Galileo... not so much.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

They along with Brahe moved us out of the geocentric, religiously bound model that previously existed.

No, the geocentric model was proposed by Aristotle and calculated by Ptolemy. Both of these people predated the Christian religion. A simple search of the Ptolemy Wikipedia entry for religion, religious, or anything similar turned up nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If Aristarchus had not been exiled mankind might have been on the moon 1,000 years ago.    Scientific truth may advance, but the weight of Consensus most often banishes it to a dank cell until those holding the consensus can understand what the person in the dank cell has discovered.

Oh Christ, more philosophical metphors analogies and similes.

The fact remains that scientific models and knowledge is in eternal progress, based on newer, further, and more advanced observations, and that my friend is why it will never be surpassed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Oh Christ, more philosophical metphors analogies and similes.

The fact remains that scientific models and knowledge is in eternal progress, based on newer, further, and more advanced observations, and that my friend is why it will never be surpassed.

 

Aristarchus KNEW the earth revolved around the sun.  That is not philosophy in the broadest sense that is specific scientific knowledge.  Neither did I use analogy or simile, dank cells and hangings were often the ends for true scientists, and please don't confuse the established state religions with Christianity here.  Modern examples involving someone else claiming the work are found by the curious, most often in our era a man claims the woman's discovery.  What are you going to be left with, Beecee, if Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes are 'discovered' to be false?  They ARE only theories, after all.   Nevertheless, I am counting on scientific advances to confirm certain ancient knowledge, like the water beyond the furthest galaxies, for instance, but as that is written of in a book considered off limits to most science forums I won't mention it here. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

A typical troll, doing exactly what he accuses someone else of doing.

 

Where is your evidence for your underlined words?

"Troll" :   A typical internet insult and accusation towards a person with beliefs differing from another person's.   Often the accused is too considerate and polite to respond with similar insult .. but that is not necessary, as most people on the internet are familiar with the personality of the person hurling the insults.

"Where is the evidence for your underlined words?" :  A request made most often by those who fail most often to provide evidence for their own statements, underlined or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ALine said:

My position is that this arguement is pointless for the fact that by defining a God like entity you are defining an absoluye observer which is why they define him as being, "everywhere at ome time." If you accept this model then the arguement ends there. If something is observing everything then that would mean that everything is always known as has always been there due to him having observed it. So no amount of reasoning can go against an arguement such as this due to a God being all observing so everything would always exist even if no one is around to observe it. If you deny this model then there is no absolute observer which means that everything become uncertain if you are no longer observing it. If you accept the model set by religion then there is always an observer and everything is known due to that observer being in every dimension including time. If you deny the model set by religion then there are only observers when those observers "exist." These observers being humans. If we do not observe it then it does not exist. Therefore it up to the individual who wishes to choose between either of these models to decide which they prefer. So it all comes down to a matter of choice between ideas. Your choice is for you to decide and not for others to decide for you. Thats it. These seperate ideas do not mix because they are seperate in nature. One is neither correct nor in correct, they simply are.

On top of this the arguement which is used are themselves meaningless, where logic is a construct used to understand what we understand. Any and all concepts which we create and assume not to create may simply be a resultant of observation and the comparison between previous observations with current observations. Even if you say you do not argue against the concept of a God, the mear mentioning of him, any and every attempt to communicate with him is therefore invalid due to the use of an observed concepts of him existing. Going back to my initial arguement, an individual cannot define something as being an absolute, even something as being analogous to being an absolutes absolute because for something to be considered "real", in any case, it must be observed. Now if you are describing a feeling as being a God then there is no problem in this. However making a blanketing statement, in general, such as "something is real for everything and exists in all things" is a BIG problem. You, at this point in general, are defining an absolute truth without observation. This goes against what truth IS and its designed objective in general. Redefining it for a specific instanc3 does not change its agreed upon definition. Changing it only adds confusion. And even if you do not change it, in general, using the statements of other who have changed it, no matter how influential, does not change the agreed upon definition unless everyone agrees to it.

 

I'm not religious, ALine. I don't believe in God.

The reason for the verses of doggerel I quoted is that you seemed to be -- and still seem to be -- espousing the philosophy of Bishop Berkeley. The poetry captures his thought very nicely: esse est percipi - "to be is to be perceived".

Not that I'm averse to a little atavism myself (or is it Ativan?), though I struggled high and low to find an answer to a fairly straightforward question in your latest post. Lemme try again:

What do I see when there's a lemur standing in front of me?

Oh wait, that was someone else that I couldn't get a straight answer from (Hi Sensei :wub: )

Yours is: "Is it your position that Uranus, inasmuch as it had never been observed, did not exist prior to its discovery?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.