Quest

[NavajoEverclear]

i am asking for help in my quest. I do not know if it is a noble quest, but it will be a new one, if only i knew where to scout.

 

so specifically addressing the issue---- those of you who have been with this site long enough should be aware of my philosophy about science, if not here: nothing is really scientifically proovable because we cannot proove the efficiency or that we are correctly using the capabilites we have as imprerfect beings (more simply stated: scientifically everything including science is about faith). My quest then is to know is there anyone who with these general beliefs that is not a complete crackpot. Is there any famous or official version of this idea like 'the law of uncertainty' or does it appear i will have to build this field from the pathetic seed i possess. I do believe my own understanding of the principal is quite primitive, it would be easier to find one who has taken the idea deeper.

[Sayonara]

I wasn't aware you had a philosophy so much as a bunch of self-contradicting ideas.

 

You won't find "one who has taken the idea deeper", because most people who share these ideas are the ones who have a fear of putting in enough effort to get anything useful out of the scientific process.

 

Failure to understand something does not make that thing unprovable or wrong.

[NSX]

I forgot who said this, but it goes something along the lines of If you doubt even the foundations of life, it's no longer worth living anymore.

[Star-struck]

Go with it NSX!!! One thing that irritates me to no end is how much "faith" people put into all these theories given that we can't even comprehend what 85% of the universe is comprised of. Our little theories work within the confines of our limited knowledge, sure enough, but in reality we may be as far from the truth as can be. That being the case, I don't understand how people can tell others, unequivocably, that they are wrong. In reality, they may be on the mark. I can't respect someone who familiarizes him/herself with a bunch of someone else's theories and argues them as if they were their own. Pseudo-intellects! Think out of the box! None of these people, of whom can't even break out of their own mental paradigms, will ever contribute anything of value.

[Star-struck]

Sorry, I incorrectly attributed to NSX when it should have been NavajoEverclear.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Star-struck

Go with it NSX!!! One thing that irritates me to no end is how much faith people put into all these theories given that we can't even comprehend what 85% of the universe is comprised of. Our little theories work within the confines of our limited knowledge, sure enough, but in reality we may be as far from the truth as can be. That being the case, I don't understand how people can tell others, unequivocably, that they are wrong. In reality, they may be on the mark. I can't respect someone who familiarizes him/herself with a bunch of someone else's theories and argues them as if they were their own. Pseudo-intellects! Think out of the box! None of these people, of whom can't even break out of their own mental paradigms, will ever contribute anything of value.

 

Scientists recognise that the theories may well be wrong (HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD), but any alternative that has LESS EVIDENCE FOR IT will be MORE WRONG.

 

See: spin gravity. That's obviously wrong because it disagrees with just about all the observed data.

 

Once you come up with something BETTER, then you can criticise the existing theories for being 'totally wrong'.

[Sayonara]

I like the way I pre-replied to that

[Star-struck]

Funny that you should be the first to reply. You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. You say that, "any alternative that has LESS EVIDENCE FOR IT will be MORE WRONG." When you don't know anything about 85% of what you are dealing with, that type of conclusion may be leading you entirely in the wrong direction. Although you admit that everything we know could be wrong, you continue to put too much stock in it. You are too quick to tell someone they are wrong when, for all you know, they may be entirely correct. It is this type of egocentric elitist attitude that hurts scientific progress.

[NavajoEverclear]

I see some people have a passion for chastisement. You misunderstand me. I do not say one thing is wrong, i say we do not know for certain, and scientifically there is no way we can. Star-struck---- it seems that in a way you agree with what i mean, but in another way are severely offended by what you interpreted me to mean. I personally believe in most scientific theories, but the fact is nothing NOTHING can be proven. I am not saying anyone is wrong, i am saying science is one set of beliefs, but by science (my definition of it) it is not the only way. MLjakari appears to favor allowing people to their own faith, but has the good point that unprooven things are more likely wrong than the ones that appear to be right. This is one way of look at things that i do not bash. I do not present new ideas as absolute truths. can anyone point out a time that i have? I will address it if so.

 

I hate resorting to example, because often they still offer no better justification for my chosen beliefs.

 

Imagine we are in the matrix (its a movie i believe most people here would know about). Is this possible? Is it possible that everything we see are falsified electric input from a imaging computer? You may say it is unlikely, but you cannot proove it is impossible. In this case all of our science, is based on a computer program or something, which you can not be certain duplicates the true laws of physics, or that at some point these laws will appear to be defied. I hate make this example because people then take this as the actual material of my beliefs----- its not! it is my atttempt to show you there is no way you can be sure that the information sent you brain is coming from a real universe or one you understand. Accepting this fact of unsurity is only the beginning of the new science, i have a hard time imagining i am the only one who things like me, that is why i asked if any of you know of some field of science devoted to alternative possibilites.

I am getting tired of explaining myself, because even explaining myself tells you little about the truth of myself. We'd all be much better off if we could telepathically communicate. Such is not so as far as i know so have a little patience please.

 

NSX---- good quote, I accept this too. That is the other part of the idea. Once we know nothing is sure we must make a decision about it, we are constantly making decisions, we must choose some path. To choose to choose nothing because nothing is set in stone as far as we know, would be pure idiocy. The purpose of my theory is to show that purpose and truth ought to be questioned about constantly, you make you choices according to reasons you choose to configure your mentality. I hope to free people of holding any beliefs because of obligation to 'truth' because nothing can be prooven, as far as anything can be prooven you are as right as anyone else no matter what be your choice, so choose not by obligation, but by what you believe has the most purpose in it.

 

So this field of thinking----- do you know of any already established group i could contribute to, or must i be the first to dive down the rabbit hole?

[Sayonara]

Just because we don't all explicitly state "actually, nobody really knows anything and I could be talking crap" at the end of every post doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean we don't accept it as a margin for error.

 

Perhaps you should refrain from making judgements about people's personalities and instead appraise them on the scientific discourse they engage in. You know, on this Science Discussion Forum.

 

[edit - that was for SS]

[NavajoEverclear]

I have freed my mind of obligation to obligations. I could honostly choose to believe whatever i wanted. If that is science, i could do it, it is my choice. I wish that other people would open their eyes and take advantage of their own liberty to do so. Perhaps this is a wrong wish, so to better state it: i am curious at what things will occur when others apply this principal to their own thinking.

[Star-struck]

Navajo, I agree with you totally and take no offense to anything you said. My exception was with Sayonara.

 

Sayonara, I don't mean to judge you personally except that the point of Navajo's post is exactly how you seem to be. You seem very close minded to possibilities that don't exactly mesh with well established theories. You are very quick to tell someone they are wrong then, in the next breath, admit that everything you base your OPINIONS on may be incorrect. There is no room for rigidity of thinking in science. Often times, the biggest breakthroughs come from deviation from normal thinking.

[Sayonara]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps I don't plough everything I think into every single post?

 

Odd as this may seem i actually have "quite a bit" to do. I don't have the time to spend mapping every possiblity out for every kid who comes along posting random madness they made up before they've bothered to learn about logic, deductive reasoning and scientific method.

 

This isn't about rigidity at all. I am actually possibly one of the most open-minded people you will meet - the fact that I don't always express it here is in no way relevant. This is not a "What If" forum, this is a Science forum. We discuss science here, in scientific terms, using universal concepts and established theory.

 

Since you have elected not to consider any of this as a possibility - or indeed a probability - then yes, you are judging me.

 

I don't have to justify the content I omit from posts or put into them, and I certainly don't have to prove to you that all of established theory is any more likely than whatever crap people can pull out of thin air.

 

Yes, there is a possibility we have made serious errors and don't fully understand everything we think we do, but that doesn't mean that all of the madness that has been posted here in the past is "as likely as" what we think is real. It's not difficult to spot an argument or model that can't stand under even its own weight.

You seem very close minded to possibilities that don't exactly mesh with well established theories.

That's because all the major established theories mesh together. Something that only meshes with one or two of them is highly likely to be wrong.

You are very quick to tell someone they are wrong then, in the next breath, admit that everything you base your OPINIONS on may be incorrect.

I thought the point of your campaign was to laud doing this as "a good thing"?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Star-struck

Funny that you should be the first to reply. You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. You say that, "any alternative that has LESS EVIDENCE FOR IT will be MORE WRONG." When you don't know anything about 85% of what you are dealing with, that type of conclusion may be leading you entirely in the wrong direction. Although you admit that everything we know could be wrong, you continue to put too much stock in it. You are too quick to tell someone they are wrong when, for all you know, they may be entirely correct. It is this type of egocentric elitist attitude that hurts scientific progress.

 

So what you're saying is we should automatically assume things that don't have evidence for them?

 

I'm telling people they're wrong when they are empirically wrong; the chance of them being right is so miniscule that it makes no difference.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

That's because all the major established theories mesh together.

 

Except the standard model of quantum physics and general relativity.

 

But they only fail to mesh because of the quantum fuzz.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Except the standard model of quantum physics and general relativity.

But they only fail to mesh because of the quantum fuzz.

I knew you'd spot that!

 

That's exactly what I mean about not always mapping out every possibility in every post.

 

Failing to mesh with 1 out of all established theories is pretty good odds on being correct.

[NavajoEverclear]

Star Struck--- please dont insult sayanora, i dont see he has done anything wrong, and if he had it is not a permenant and fatal flaw in his existence. It somewhat appears you verbally punished him to define your apology to me. And that statement is an insult on my part i apologize, i only mean to point out a possibly flawed way of thinking.

 

MrL_Jakari--- the point of my theory is that as far as is scientifically proovable (science being about what is proovable and proof cannot be prooven) the crackpot theory is exactly as possible as the 'scientific' one. emperical is not scientific, it applies to your own beliefs on what truth is. I personally would choose to rest my beliefs on mainstream science over crackpot science, because what makes it crackpot science is the reason by which these sets of beliefs, presented as science were created. An application of the theory is to broaden science by accepting the fact of the theory.

 

The strange thing is that i feel like a crackpot myself, i think my reasons for pursuit of it in the face of just about everyone who dissagrees with it, and my method of presentation are much to similar to that of a crackpot. The reason i continue is a hope that someone will guide me beyond being the only supporter of this form of the theory. But the thing i feel i have that a crackpot does not have is about the only proovable thing in existence. Take it mathmatically speaking in a way, as mathmatics is proovable (1+1=2 is an absolute truth isn't it): in this particular possibility, probability cannot be measured. Nothing is certainly certain-- how can this be mathmatically denied?

 

So could we resolve some of the questions I asked to be resolved(ignoring this reply which is mostly crap and a futile attempt at restoring the original intent)? I mean it is my thread, the purpose i started it was not for you to all argue at each other for the morals or whatever of going with or against science. I think you should by now sense what i want to know, and that i would be sufficiently grateful for a profitable reply addressing these concerns.

[Skye]

Seriously, read a basic introduction to the scientific method, even a page or two will answer your questions. Evidence can support or disprove a hypothesis, it isn't proof. Mathematics follows abstract rules so it can prove itself within those rules.

[NavajoEverclear]

excuse me are you saying 1+1does not=2? I am open to this possibility if you explain how. The way i see it is if i have one apple, and I gain an apple while keeping the original, i now have two apples. Is this debatable? Ok fine call it evidence--- you recieve evidence through your senses, you senses send signals to your brain, your intrepret them. How can you be sure you are reading these signals correctly, or that they are even coming from real interaction with a real enviroment. Have you read all the posts? I know they are tediously redundant probably, but you would not say such things if you saw them already addressed. I think i should stop talking so much and just ask one question at a time if i am ever to get an answer.

 

BTW i know the scientific method, how do you know your experimentation is being done in a real universe, or that you actually have power to accurately calculate conclusions based on the electrical input to your brain?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

excuse me are you saying 1+1does not=2?

 

That's a definition of the counting system rather than a mathematical axiom. As such, it's a linguistic rather than mathematical problem.

 

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

BTW i know the scientific method, how do you know your experimentation is being done in a real universe, or that you actually have power to accurately calculate conclusions based on the electrical input to your brain?

 

1. It doesn't matter if it's being done in a real universe or not.

 

2. That's just really stupid.

 

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

MrL_JaKiri-- the point of my theory is that as far as is scientifically proovable (science being about what is proovable and proof cannot be prooven) the crackpot theory is exactly as possible as the 'scientific' one. emperical is not scientific, it applies to your own beliefs on what truth is. I personally would choose to rest my beliefs on mainstream science over crackpot science, because what makes it crackpot science is the reason by which these sets of beliefs, presented as science were created. An application of the theory is to broaden science by accepting the fact of the theory.

 

Science is about empiricism. If you believe otherwise, you ARE wrong, because that is something that's more than empirically verifiable.

 

Empirical is scientific, and you've misunderstood the nature of empiricism if you think it applies your beliefs to it. What you are calculating is the statistical significance (that's right kids, mathematics!) of the events you have observered. Effort goes into experiments to make sure that they're NOT being affected by the user.

 

I don't know what motive you think scientists have, but 'Making sure I'm right' comes quite far behind 'Trying to find out about the universe'.

 

In addition to this, if experiments did have user bias, then that would be gotten rid of in peer review.

 

You know what area of 'science' doesn't follow this system?

 

The social 'sciences' don't, and normal scientists don't really have much respect for them; they lack the disinterested nature/peer review of 'proper' science.

 

ps.

 

In relation to 'MAYBE WE'RE TOTALLY OFF THE MARK'; that isn't possible. If you want rather a lot of evidence for, say, the Quantum Theory, what about the computer you're using right now? That works and was built under the Standard Model. What about particle accelerators, which every time they're used provide more evidence for Special Relativity.

 

The list goes on and on.

[Sayonara]

In case anybody was wondering, the word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge.

 

It doesn't leave much scope for "maybe the universe works because of this thing I can imagine, despite the evidence". If that's what you're after, you want a very tolerant philosophy forum.

[Skye]

BTW i know the scientific method, how do you know your experimentation is being done in a real universe

The scientific method usually includes something about experimentation being done within the observable universe, or at least this is implicit given that it is based on observation. The rest of your post highlights problems that occur when trying to describe a 'real' universe, rather than the observable one.

 

If you want to learn how people have taken this further, try a little metaphysics.

 

http://mally.stanford.edu/

[NavajoEverclear]

it doesn't matter how i say it foo, 1+1=2. Why does everyone ignore everything i say, not one of my true concerns were even remotely directly addressed (an oximoron i dont care). My definition of science (as i already said, but it appears you did not read or consider) is what is backed by evidence, isn't that what emperically means? But in truth your proovable surity of anything is squat, empirical means nothing because nothing can be prooven. The proof cannot be prooven. I must be a fool to say the same thing over and over again when noone cares to consider. And no i dont want to join a philosophy forum, modern philosophers are even more idiotic than scientists.

 

You can drop a stone a thousand times, you will never know it will not one time fall up instead of down. You may think you know, but what you think does not have power over the truth, the truth is above you.

[Sayonara]

You know what? You're completely correct.

 

We don't know that we know what we know. There is no way to be sure. But there comes a point where you have to make a decision.

 

You can either go with the observable evidence and base your models on the best data, or be forever lost in the world of maybe.

 

No faith is required. Only a healthy measure of scepticism.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

You can drop a stone a thousand times, you will never know it will not one time fall up instead of down. You may think you know, but what you think does not have power over the truth, the truth is above you.

 

However, the probability of it falling 'up' next time is statistically insignificant.