Omniscience?

[The Stranger]

statement:

Science will prove everything, it is only a matter of time.

[Strike For The South]

You never "prove" anything in science

Thread and philosophy fail

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You never "prove" anything in science


You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

[Strike For The South]

You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

Nothing in Science is ever proven

Theories are supported with empirical evidence

They are NOT proven

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nothing in Science is ever proven

Theories are supported with empirical evidence

They are NOT proven

You mean to say theories are never proven, not "nothing is ever proven".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Theoretically: Nothing is really known. Science has its models which are supported by mounds of empirical evidence and can accurately predict natural phenomena.

Practically: We know a lot of things that are for all intents and purposes are proven.

EDIT: Except that we exist. That I guess, would be an axiom.

[The Stranger]

You never "prove" anything in science

Thread and philosophy fail

as eloquent as ever XD

its why it is called a debate... some arguments please.

[Reenk Roink]

How ironic, I'm doing some freakin' science right now and I just want to sleep. :sad:


Science will prove everything, it is only a matter of time.

:no:


You never "prove" anything in science

Some (a few) would still argue you do. It is quite unfashionable now, Popperian thought has dominated for a while, but you can still find those people who look at science as proving things, and not only in a colloquial sense of proof.


You do prove things in science. And obviously you "prove" things too.

What do you prove in science?


EDIT: Except that we exist. That I guess, would be an axiom.

More than that though. You could probably get rid of that one if you wanted by the way.

[The Stranger]

oi. i am just getting a debate going. the statement in no way reflects what i think about the subject. you reenk should know that :P

[Reenk Roink]

oi. i am just getting a debate going. the statement in no way reflects what i think about the subject. you reenk should know that :P

Of course I do my man, but you honestly need to change your major unless you like working in bookstores for the rest of your life... :book:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What do you prove in science?


Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

[The Stranger]

Of course I do my man, but you honestly need to change your major unless you like working in bookstores for the rest of your life... :book:

why? :P i will be a succesful author within a few years trust me on that. ive got it all planned out.

first i will use my poetry skills to get some poetry published then i will use that as a leverage for them to check out my novel. it will be utterly crap but will be marketed better than the millenium trilogy. 10 times better and it will be only 5 times worse (if that is possible) then i will make millions of euros and i will buy that friggin bookstore... owyea.

btw. NO MORE SIDETRACKING THE DEBATE!

[Reenk Roink]

Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

None of these things are proven/provable.


There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

Tell me about it...

[The Stranger]

None of these things are proven/provable.


hmm. you will have to elaborate on that.

i would think that it is reasonably proven (not taking any hardcore sceptiscism in account atm) that it is flammable, or that water becomes ice etc the HOW it happens though, that will be the hard thing to prove (in/on philosophical terms)
science does have pragmatic value.

[Fisherking]

I would say that with scientific experiment we demonstrate the repeatability of a particular phenomenon.

The sticky point comes when scientists reach conclusions based on the experiments.

They are often wrong and have to be revised.

What does this prove?

Read my sig!

[The Stranger]

your sig is facebook worthy XD

now continue with the debate and i warn you!!! no more sidetracking.

[Reenk Roink]

hmm. you will have to elaborate on that.

i would think that it is reasonably proven (not taking any hardcore sceptiscism in account atm) that it is flammable, or that water becomes ice etc the HOW it happens though, that will be the hard thing to prove (in/on philosophical terms)

Yeah, we aren't doing any kind of hardcore skepticism yet, as there is no need to recourse to it, because these examples are too easy.

All of these statements follow the general pattern of prediction and explanation in an inductivist account. Immediately speaking, they are likely deductive, but premise 1 (laws and theories) is itself based on an induction. Induction is demonstratively an invalid proof.

P > Q
Q
so P

...or the similar denying the antecedent...

Obviously, as I alluded to in my reply to STFS, some people would try and cling to this (naive - there are better versions) inductivist view and say things in science can be proven. However, they are like the California Golden Seals, going against arguments against it which are like the 70's Canadiens. Not a fair fight at all.

Was it instead said, "gasoline has been flammable once before, water became ice when it got cold enough once before, corn needed water and sunlight to grow once before, there was a placebo effect once before, etc," then it would be harder to argue against and require a stricter standard of skepticism going beyond something baseline like we've done here (though in cases 1, 3, and especially 4, someone could make the argument based on unobserved influences due to the way the statements are worded and avoid any more skepticism).


science does have pragmatic value.

Absolutely.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gasoline is flammable, water becomes ice when it gets cold enough, corn needs water and sunlight to grow, there is a placebo effect, etc.

There's an absurd amount of silly things said about science and proof for some reason.

We don't "prove" observable things, if you want to be really technical about it. Over time we have seen these observable phenomena and have constructed around them explanations which satisfy the ability to be proven wrong and that adequately predict such events and future events.

[Fisherking]

@ The Stranger

So if we make that statement a premise, which side do you fall into?

Many “well educated people” often fall into a trap of thing they already know everything worthwhile and need learn no more.

Do you think all things are provable and that conclusions are generally accurate?

[Reenk Roink]

now continue with the debate and i warn you!!! no more sidetracking.

Ok, ok, back to the original topic at hand let me elaborate on my negative answer.

Obviously, I have the same view as STFS on science and proof in any kind of meaningful sense, so a flat out no.

Let's be a bit flexible here and go to colloquial and weaker versions of proof to extend this discussion though. So here are just some of the issues I have.

Science won't even prove everything within its own (current or future) paradigm because 'the facts' are infinite. However, I do expect that advances (again speaking strictly within the paradigm itself, not any kind of ontological advancement in knowledge) will happen obviously. There are some trouble zones remaining though (GR vis a vis QM), it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

EDIT: Actually reading your initial statement one more time TS, in a way, I think the answer could be 'yes' say if a theory of everything was formulated. Again it would be within the confines of the current/future paradigm and not (necessarily) have anything to do with ontological reality, but yeah... Now I don't know enough to say confidently or even feel confidently if that will ever happen.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We don't "prove" observable things, if you want to be really technical about it. Over time we have seen these observable phenomena and have constructed around them explanations which satisfy the ability to be proven wrong and that adequately predict such events and future events.

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.


Yeah, we aren't doing any kind of hardcore skepticism yet, as there is no need to recourse to it, because these examples are too easy.

All of these statements follow the general pattern of prediction and explanation in an inductivist account. Immediately speaking, they are likely deductive, but premise 1 (laws and theories) is itself based on an induction. Induction is demonstratively an invalid proof.

P > Q
Q
so P

...or the similar denying the antecedent...

Obviously, as I alluded to in my reply to STFS, some people would try and cling to this (naive - there are better versions) inductivist view and say things in science can be proven. However, they are like the California Golden Seals, going against arguments against it which are like the 70's Canadiens. Not a fair fight at all.

Was it instead said, "gasoline has been flammable once before, water became ice when it got cold enough once before, corn needed water and sunlight to grow once before, there was a placebo effect once before, etc," then it would be harder to argue against and require a stricter standard of skepticism going beyond something baseline like we've done here (though in cases 1, 3, and especially 4, someone could make the argument based on unobserved influences due to the way the statements are worded and avoid any more skepticism).


No, people just bastardize language when they are motivated to. It's a sick side of philosophy and reason in general.

[Reenk Roink]

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.

No, people just bastardize language when they are motivated to. It's a sick side of philosophy and reason in general.

:rolleyes:

[The Stranger]

@ The Stranger

So if we make that statement a premise, which side do you fall into?

Many “well educated people” often fall into a trap of thing they already know everything worthwhile and need learn no more.

Do you think all things are provable and that conclusions are generally accurate?

if i understand this correctly you refer to the OP statement and not that of mark twain? in the first case i would stand side by side with reenk. maybe a little behind him, he is more radical in this case than i am i think. in the latter case of mark twain i would definitly fall in the category of stupid :grin:

i definitly dont think that science can prove all outside the paradigm of science. within it though perhaps it can, when as reenk has said, a theory of all can be formulated, this would take alot of time but that was part of the OP statement.

i have been thinking about it lately and somehow i have this intuition of domains in which certain methods have more validity than others, but i dont yet know how to make this a coherent thought.

i think i will have to suffice with the following: any attempt to understand and know the world in a coherent way (or kosmos in the sense of everything) following the rules of a certain method or paradigm will neccesarily fail to do so completely and truthful because there will always be elements of this world which will not fit in and will therefore be denied the right of existence or existence in total.

i will settle for the paradox.

ps

another thing that struck me as odd is this: Facts. They are quite troublesome. Because what are they exactly? If i would sit in a classroom full of people, am i then surrounded by facts or by people and things or images/impressions of those things? According to the analytic traditions facts are neither true nor false, only the claims made about facts are true of false. Which means that the facts are not the claims made about things and persons in the world, which would be the next logical step. Neither are they the statistic representation of events in the world as struck me a while ago when people kept talking about the evident or obvious nature of facts (the facts speak for themself is an expression in dutch, and this was at the centre of that debate). But when we look at a statistic we are not actually looking at the facts, we are looking at the representation of the facts, which means that there is a moment of interpretation that preceeds it. This leads me to believe that they cant be the facts because the facts are supposed to be undisputed. Can we actually know facts and what exactly are they or what do they consist of?

[Reenk Roink]

I think I come off as a little more 'radical' than I really am on this issue, because I tend to really take the argument to its extreme, especially at the beginning. Especially with all the 'pro-science' claims you find flying around that are just too juicy to pass up a good trolling. I find it is an effective dialectical method, and I let the wishy washy compromised view that I hold leak out further in the discussion if it is a good one. So while I may look like a hardcore promoter of the total incommensurablity of paradigms, I'm really on the side of Lakatos more than Feyerabend and I too share your intuition of certain methods having more validity than others, though it's nigh impossible to pin down.

[Fisherking]

Well simple answers are sometimes the best.

I disagree with the Original Post as well.

What I wanted to know was this:
i would definitly fall in the category of stupid :grin:


So you are on the side of our limitless abundance of knowledge at the present time?

I am only trying to judge whether this is a thread for the open-minded or for those who already know everything...

[The Stranger]

Well simple answers are sometimes the best.

I disagree with the Original Post as well.

What I wanted to know was this:

So you are on the side of our limitless abundance of knowledge at the present time?

I am only trying to judge whether this is a thread for the open-minded or for those who already know everything...

well only the first part was a direct reply to you. i think it was pretty simple :P it is a trick question tho imo. if i were to say that i am wise it would immediatly put me in the stupid section. so ill just jump that part and start of in the stupid section. on a more serious note, i dont think that our knowledge is limitless nor as abundant as some people might want you to believe. Theoretically we might know nothing at all, pragmatically our knowledge of many things have increased and many things we have forgotten or just denounced as rubbish.

in any case, this is a debate so it is open for anyone with an oppinion backed up by decent arguments. to be openminded would make the debate fruitfull but if its between biggots its definitly more fun... XD

feel free to participate. you can start by elaborating why you dont agree with the OP.

[Fisherking]

It wasn't ment as a trap but I guess it could be.


... you can start by elaborating why you dont agree with the OP.

anyway

Where begins a circle?

A. Proof requires truth, truth requires, belief, belief requires faith, faith can exist without all of the above, therefore it is not provable.
B. Infinite knowledge requires infinite time. Since demonstrates that time has a beginning and implies an end. That means that time is too short for the stated goal.
C. what ever is, is and what ever is not also is.

D. Take it away Jack!

[Husar]

Well, for starters a lot of science works with models and models only represent certain aspects of reality that are useful for a given purpose.
Without being false or wrong, a model does not show you the full extent of "the truth" if there is such a thing.

For example we can describe all sorts of attributes of electromagnetic waves, but we cannot see the waves themselves, you cannot go and watch a magnetic field, you cannot touch and feel it, you cannot hear it etc., you can only study what it does to other things and how other things react to it etc. and then build a model around this.
And then even if you could sense it somehow, everything we sense is just an interpretation of our brain, certain stimuli that our brain receives and interpretes in a certain way, a bat for example "sees"/senses the world in a different way and has no problems with orientation in pitch black darkness where we are completely lost because our most important senses are "knocked out".
So everything science "proves" is only "proven" in relation to our perception of the world, it's possible that there are waves or whatever flying around the air and space that we will never discover and as such it's doubtful that science will ever "prove" everything.
And that's apart from what others said about science not proving anything in the first place.
I think science is more a way of us exploring our surroundings with the goal of manipulating them for our purposes and for that it is rather effective, so the goal is not to find some universal truth and prove it but to gain sufficient knowledge to attain certain goals that we have for ourselves, be it the survival of our race or just earning more money.

Just my thoughts for now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We do prove them, technically. If you doubted that gasoline was flammable I could prove it to you.

Please do.

[The Stranger]

Well, for starters a lot of science works with models and models only represent certain aspects of reality that are useful for a given purpose.
Without being false or wrong, a model does not show you the full extent of "the truth" if there is such a thing.

For example we can describe all sorts of attributes of electromagnetic waves, but we cannot see the waves themselves, you cannot go and watch a magnetic field, you cannot touch and feel it, you cannot hear it etc., you can only study what it does to other things and how other things react to it etc. and then build a model around this.
And then even if you could sense it somehow, everything we sense is just an interpretation of our brain, certain stimuli that our brain receives and interpretes in a certain way, a bat for example "sees"/senses the world in a different way and has no problems with orientation in pitch black darkness where we are completely lost because our most important senses are "knocked out".
So everything science "proves" is only "proven" in relation to our perception of the world, it's possible that there are waves or whatever flying around the air and space that we will never discover and as such it's doubtful that science will ever "prove" everything.
And that's apart from what others said about science not proving anything in the first place.
I think science is more a way of us exploring our surroundings with the goal of manipulating them for our purposes and for that it is rather effective, so the goal is not to find some universal truth and prove it but to gain sufficient knowledge to attain certain goals that we have for ourselves, be it the survival of our race or just earning more money.

Just my thoughts for now.

some good thoughts i would say.

anyway

Where begins a circle?


A. Proof requires truth, truth requires, belief, belief requires faith, faith can exist without all of the above, therefore it is not provable.
B. Infinite knowledge requires infinite time. Since demonstrates that time has a beginning and implies an end. That means that time is too short for the stated goal.
C. what ever is, is and what ever is not also is.

D. Take it away Jack!

A) i agree.
B) Who is talking about infinite knowlegde? Whether knowledge is finite or infinite, this point is irrelevant to the OP.
C) this is also debatable. The logicians of atomism per example would not agree and argue that what is not is a grammatical effect.
D) i cant help but feel that you fall in the 2nd category of your sig as well ;) but then again dont we all?

[Greyblades]

Please do.
Here: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/3140959

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/3140959

That did not involve "proving" in any way. We simply observed the effect take place.

[drone]

Technically, gasoline is not flammable. Toss a match into a bucket of gas, and watch it fizzle. Gasoline vapor is flammable, but only in an properly oxygenated environment.

[Greyblades]

That did not involve "proving" in any way. We simply observed the effect take place.

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I guess you could say that if you don't believe the scientific has any value in proving things, why live your life as if it does?

Even as you reach for your keyboard to type a response to this, you're probably only doing it because you've done it repeatedly before and are fairly confident that you'll get the desired outcome.

[The Stranger]

Well I guess you could say that if you don't believe the scientific has any value in proving things, why live your life as if it does?

Even as you reach for your keyboard to type a response to this, you're probably only doing it because you've done it repeatedly before and are fairly confident that you'll get the desired outcome.

because it has pragmatic value as said before. besides one thing that one must not mistake is science and technology. wether the keyboard functions or not is technology

as for your last thing the same thing goes. wether it has worked in the past is not proof that it will work in the future. were not disputing that things work only what proof means etc.

[Husar]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

No, that's completely incorrect, first of all there is what drone said, but even beyond that the video is no proof whatsoever, the only reason to think that there is actually gasoline in the video is that the title/creator says so, who is to say that they are not burning something else?
But now we assume that we don't know that gasoline fumes can burn yet and that there is actually gasoline on the ground: My theory now is that the gasoline binds certain flammable gases from the air around it that will burn right above the gasoline. The gasoline then disappears without burning because it evaporates due to the heat. Just from watching the video, how can we determine whether your or my theory is the correct one?
I could even create a more whacky theory that there are fire ghosts that are attracted by the gasoline fumes and they dance above the gasoline, heating it up until it's completely evaporated, then they disappear, going by that video alone this theory seems entirely plausible, doesn't it?

[The Stranger]

when you challenge the method of science you shouldnt give examples in which you use that method it doesnt work.

there are and have been different methods of gaining knowledge the scientific one is the latest in that line.

there have been methods of revelation (usually tied to a religion), methods of reflection (apriori method usually tied to logic and math) and then the scientific method (testing phenomenon using trial and error and deduction)

besides no scientist would settle for just that video as proof. lets not make it to easy for ourself. both sides can do better!

[gaelic cowboy]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

If you like I can try and do a stoichiometric calculation for gasoline/petrol but seeing as there is loads of chemicals in standard petrol the balanced equation would be massive.

Frankly I dont fancy working all that out so take it that the reson petrol burns is due to a certain fuel air mix plus heat.

remove anyone of those three ie Fuel, Air or Heat and fire goes out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This thread is sad now. I know it's fashionable/pro-religion to stomp your feet and claim we can't know or prove anything but surely we're better than that.

To prove means something like "to demonstrate that X is true". If you agree that we can demonstrate that gasoline is flammable then you agree that we can prove it. It's similar to how we can have knowledge without absolute certainty.

So what the whole counter-science argument amounts to in this case is something like:

1) science can't prove even basic facts (which it can)
2) science can't prove models and untestable theories (real scientists will laugh at you and say duh)
3) scientists are people to and have the same cognitive biases (by far the best point, and an important one, but less focused because the truth of this point is one of the main reasons for the scientific method in the first place)

The sophists most powerful argument in this case turns out to be radically pro-science, ironically.

[Greyblades]

I could even create a more whacky theory that there are fire ghosts that are attracted by the gasoline fumes and they dance above the gasoline, heating it up until it's completely evaporated, then they disappear, going by that video alone this theory seems entirely plausible, doesn't it?

Yeah if you were to pull out ghosts any credability you have is gone. The rest of it is too advanced for me to argue.

[The Stranger]

This thread is sad now. I know it's fashionable/pro-religion to stomp your feet and claim we can't know or prove anything but surely we're better than that.

To prove means something like "to demonstrate that X is true". If you agree that we can demonstrate that gasoline is flammable then you agree that we can prove it. It's similar to how we can have knowledge without absolute certainty.

So what the whole counter-science argument amounts to in this case is something like:

1) science can't prove even basic facts (which it can)
2) science can't prove models and untestable theories (real scientists will laugh at you and say duh)
3) scientists are people to and have the same cognitive biases (by far the best point, and an important one, but less focused because the truth of this point is one of the main reasons for the scientific method in the first place)

The sophists most powerful argument in this case turns out to be radically pro-science, ironically.

i agree that science can prove certain things. but there are also certain things which it cant prove, things that imo cant be proven (empirically atleast) by any method i can imagine to be possible for humans. its not something bad, or something that should be held against science, i dont claim that science had such pretense at all (usually scientists are more aware of the limits and possibilities of science than those people who kinda support it without fully being aware of what it actually is). But this does mean that there is a gap which i think can only be leaped by faith, and it is this gap which makes all the big systems equal at the base

[Sasaki Kojiro]

i agree that science can prove certain things. but there are also certain things which it cant prove, things that imo cant be proven (empirically atleast) by any method i can imagine to be possible for humans. its not something bad, or something that should be held against science, i dont claim that science had such pretense at all (usually scientists are more aware of the limits and possibilities of science than those people who kinda support it without fully being aware of what it actually is). But this does mean that there is a gap which i think can only be leaped by faith, and it is this gap which makes all the big systems equal at the base

hmm I don't think faith comes into it.

As an analogy to poker, there is a limit to what calculation can get you. Then there is a gap, which is partly filled by social intuitions, which I think is relevant to science as well...but there is still a gap left, you can't know whether your hand will win or if you should bet. But WHY the heck would you leap the gap by faith? You wouldn't decide "I must bridge the gap, so I will have faith in my winning hand" because then the thing to do would be to bet heavily...you will lose very quickly. Instead you say "it's the best shot, but not certain" and that leads to reasonable wagering.

[The Stranger]

i dont get what you mean after WHY THE HECK. because how else would you leap it? if as you said already, the limit of calculation is reached. you can say it is reason, or common sense, or social intuition, but for me that qualifies as faith because it is something that you have to believe in.

the moment in poker that you have done all your calculations then there is indeed the gap left and all you can do is decide to have faith in your calculations and your luck and make the bet. i agree with the best shot but not certain, and its the not certain part in which the faith lies.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nono.

I'm saying, why leap it. I mean it's the certainty gap we're talking about, so why be certain? Just be unsure.

Having faith in your luck in poker sounds like a good way to lose.

You don't have faith in your calculations, because the calculations support themselves.

[The Stranger]

ok. you dont have to leap it but you can only leap it with faith. btw why is it better to be unsure than to leap it with faith? not that it makes much difference in the end. we agree generally i think.

about the calculations you are right. i phrased it wrong.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

ok. you dont have to leap it but you can only leap it with faith. btw why is it better to be unsure than to leap it with faith? not that it makes much difference in the end. we agree generally i think.

That's why I was surprisingly pleased with the poker analogy...let's say you can only leap the gap in how sure that your hand will win with faith. So you do, and then bet heavily, because you have faith in your luck (people do this...) you will end up losing badly in the long run.

[Reenk Roink]

i agree that science can prove certain things.

What though? You're better than people who just assert TS...


But this does mean that there is a gap which i think can only be leaped by faith, and it is this gap which makes all the big systems equal at the base

Actually I would disagree here. Yeah, we can say that there's no value neutral way to distinguish these assumptions, but certain people hold certain base values.

You'll never be able to get a rational basis for everything no matter how hard you try, because you'll just get into circularity (and circularity is perfectly logical, we just don't like it because it's no different than going ahead and assuming it). I think people should stop trying for that.

EDIT: Going further on your last sentence, skepticism and relativism for most people are not positions, they are tactics. You really don't hold these positions, but they are absolutely GREAT at savaging the pretensions of dogmatists and absolutists, should they be willing to engage you on the ground (you know your own dogma is obviously better - it does not need to be critically examined). Should they not be willing to engage you, then it's even worse for them, and just move on with a supercilious demeanor. :beam:

[Reenk Roink]

By the way just once I'd like to see us get off the ground of epistemic basics and philsci 101, and discuss some real interesting topics like the demarcation problem in concrete and not abstract terms, the constructive side of Popperian though, namely is deductivism and how the idea of science by modus tollens holds up, and of course constructive empiricism and if/how it gives the lovers of science all they want without going to a full blown realism (have you read van Fraassen TS? Good Catholic boy he is). I guess I'll be PMing you sometime later TS, if I want to bounce those kind of ideas off... :juggle2:

[The Stranger]

By the way just once I'd like to see us get off the ground of epistemic basics and philsci 101, and discuss some real interesting topics like the demarcation problem in concrete and not abstract terms, the constructive side of Popperian though, namely is deductivism and how the idea of science by modus tollens holds up, and of course constructive empiricism and if/how it gives the lovers of science all they want without going to a full blown realism (have you read van Fraassen TS? Good Catholic boy he is). I guess I'll be PMing you sometime later TS, if I want to bounce those kind of ideas off... :juggle2:


i havent read him and i will be looking forward to your pm :)

[The Stranger]

That's why I was surprisingly pleased with the poker analogy...let's say you can only leap the gap in how sure that your hand will win with faith. So you do, and then bet heavily, because you have faith in your luck (people do this...) you will end up losing badly in the long run.

so what you are saying is to act cautious and not bet? though the poker analogy would do well in an economic world i think for most humans losing is as much part of the experience of human life as is winning. thats why many people often go by the principle of having never tried something is a certain loss.

whichever way we react to the gap however, it is the gap which makes for the equality imo. so my point still stands i think.

[Rhyfelwyr]

By the way just once I'd like to see us get off the ground of epistemic basics and philsci 101, and discuss some real interesting topics like the demarcation problem in concrete and not abstract terms, the constructive side of Popperian though, namely is deductivism and how the idea of science by modus tollens holds up, and of course constructive empiricism and if/how it gives the lovers of science all they want without going to a full blown realism (have you read van Fraassen TS? Good Catholic boy he is). I guess I'll be PMing you sometime later TS, if I want to bounce those kind of ideas off... :juggle2:

These are English only forums remember...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Indeed and what do we get from that? That the gasolene in the video combusted, I think that proves that gasolene or at least the gasolene in the video is flamable. It would seem that you just dont want to acknowledge any point that disagrees with your viewpoint. Hardly worth arguing when your so dead set.

Well this post is just silly. I don't know where exactly I have shown myself to be unwilling to acknowledge a viewpoint different from my own. And I don't see how I have been so "dead set" in what I am saying. I started my first post of with "technically: this but practically: this". Is this not a reasonable view of distinguishing the two?

Your conclusion from the video is just flawed, I'm sorry to say that but it is. First of all you seem to think that "prove" and "provide evidence for" are the same. They are not. This video provided strong evidence that gasoline is flammable, but unless we examine what is happening on a more molecular level, we really cannot say anything for sure about the flammability of gasoline solely from this one video. Anyone can tell you can pointing to one piece of evidence and saying, "Here is the proof." is not only bad science but it is bad arguing period.

Now for the most part, most things up through quantum mechanics, subatomic structures etc...have been more or less proven. Period. From the early 20th Century on, there have been more and more models which are very accurate at predicting phenomena that we cannot see for ourselves with the naked eye or even a powerful optical microscrope. These however, are models.

We have "proven" that gasoline is flammable because a couple hundred years ago, a bunch of scientific pioneers started meticulously measuring the mass of compounds before and after burning/heating and measuring the amount of air that was removed in the process. Then the particular element in the air that was being removed was isolated from the rest from even more meticulous experiments, and etc...

As I said before, technically the things we have "proven" are not without a doubt absolutely correct and not flawed in any way. We just have established years, decades, centuries of supporting evidence explaining our reasoning for it.

Practically what all this evidence means is that we have pretty much proved it. But I feel that it is a bad mindset to take anything you learn in science as "granted" as you would in sunday school. Always be skeptical, but trust the evidence.

[phonicsmonkey]

The problem arises when we try to use induction to project the likelihood of future events.

The well-used example is that of a turkey in the six months leading up to christmas. Each day he is presented with evidence to support and strengthen his theory that human beings are benevolent and interested in his continuing welfare...until one day.

So while several posters who have made the point that science has great pragmatic value, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that some times it does not and in fact can be damaging if wrong conclusions are drawn from evidence.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, stock market prediction isn't science that's for sure, even if they give nobel prizes to people.

[The Stranger]

tell that to a stockbroker.

[Sigurd]

Erasmus Montanus comes to mind...

[The Stranger]

i dont really see how it does. i kinda see though XD i havent read it so cant really tell.

[Beskar]

Everything is falsifiable. That is Omniscience and it is true.

[The Stranger]

Everything is falsifiable. That is Omniscience and it is true.

care to explain? it is a debate, arguments would be nice to keep it constructive :)

[phonicsmonkey]

Well, stock market prediction isn't science that's for sure, even if they give nobel prizes to people.

True dat - have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on this topic?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

True dat - have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on this topic?

Yeah, that's where I thought the turkey story was from :beam:

[phonicsmonkey]

Yeah, that's where I thought the turkey story was from :beam:

Correct (although originally from Bertrand Russell I think).

I like him (NNT) because he has practical experience. I also worked in an investment bank so I can relate to his experiences of managing real uncertainty. Plus he likes the same philosophers of science as I do... (Nelson Goodman, Kark Popper)