Omniscience?

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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 :)

[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.

[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.

[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.