Omniscience?

**The Stranger** · 02-13-2011, 08:49

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

**Reenk Roink** · 02-13-2011, 09:02

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 02-13-2011, 09:22

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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** · 02-13-2011, 09:23

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 02-13-2011, 12:19

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

Please do.

**Greyblades** · 02-13-2011, 13:45

Please do.

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

**a completely inoffensive name** · 02-13-2011, 14:09

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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

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

**drone** · 02-13-2011, 16:43

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** · 02-13-2011, 17:01

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.