So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you're dismissing evidence on the basis of it being "old"? That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the evidence at hand (albeit, you could be right, and ALL the evidence is wrong). It is neither contemporary or modern, but it still sheds some light upon the matter. Because a source is not primary, does not make it incorrect. Hell, maybe the author's of these secondary sources had access to primary sources that no longer exist.

No, I'm dismissing it as outdated, based on my knowledge of developments in historiography and the multiple failing in practice a hundred years ago. These include, but are not limited to, use of secondary sources as evidence, failure to cite sources generally or specifically, failure to consult primary sources, a tendancy to fill gaps with supposition (without notice) and a general tendancy to bend the narrative for literary and sometimes political benefit.

I should imagine that primary sources for this period of history in the Netherlands are fairly comprehensive, as the printing press would was well established as were the secular and eccesiasical administrations, and literacy was relatively high.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to what a primary source is, a "Primary Source" is either an original document, such as an actual Papal Bull, or a piece of physical evidence, such as a mass grave. A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source, but a different one to a narrative history - none the less niether are actually evidence in themselves, in the case of the latter type of secondary source I can dismiss them out of hand because they are just opinions from previous historians, they do not actually tell you as much about the period they purport to be about as they do about the period they were written.

And you say that the evidence is not a primary source, AND to bring you something more modern. Aren't you contradicting yourself? All modern sources are secondary, because they are merely stating observations based on what they can see from evidence they have gathered themselves.

Modern secondary sources can be checked because they have proper bibliographical citations, and they are better because they treat history as an art and a science, not a literary exercise.

So no, I'm not contradicting myself. Here we generally expect students to cite sources no more than twenty years old in support of their arguments, unless the source has stood up to previous attacks, of course.

And say that it IS propaganda. Why would the Catholic church garner so much hate? Is it because of something they did? Because people were xenophobic? Care to share your thoughts (i.e. evidence) about the relations between the Catholic church and the general masses? Out of curiousity, of course.

If you want my opinions on the Catholic Church, I suggest you start another topic as the precise nature and flaws in that ancient edifice are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make for the last page or so.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The quotation doesn't seem plausible to me, if only for the reason that I find it hard to believe that there were three million people in those provinces. IIRC the Netherlands had somewhere between 2-3 million inhabitants in the latter 19th century. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that to get to 3 million in the 16th century you'd have to add up the "southern Netherlands" (and you probably still wouldn't arrive at that number), i.e. the general area of modern Belgium. And that wouldn't make sense, because at the time it was still largely catholic.

The number itself is not implausible for a number of reasons. First of all, the 19th century saw lots of migration out of the Netherlands, whereas the 16th and 17th centuries saw the exact reverse. For instance Amsterdam in the 17th century was a lot larger than it was in the 19th.

Additionally, this figure will include both the Netherlands as you know them and Belgium, or rather Flanders. This alone tends to double the figure relative to what you'd expect compared to the same for the territories that make up the modern Netherlands.

The tone of the piece is however rather sensationalist and indeed it makes little sense. However we also need to consider that 1566 had just happened and in a big way.

[spankythehippo]

No, I'm dismissing it as outdated, based on my knowledge of developments in historiography and the multiple failing in practice a hundred years ago. These include, but are not limited to, use of secondary sources as evidence, failure to cite sources generally or specifically, failure to consult primary sources, a tendancy to fill gaps with supposition (without notice) and a general tendancy to bend the narrative for literary and sometimes political benefit.

I should imagine that primary sources for this period of history in the Netherlands are fairly comprehensive, as the printing press would was well established as were the secular and eccesiasical administrations, and literacy was relatively high.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to what a primary source is, a "Primary Source" is either an original document, such as an actual Papal Bull, or a piece of physical evidence, such as a mass grave. A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source, but a different one to a narrative history - none the less niether are actually evidence in themselves, in the case of the latter type of secondary source I can dismiss them out of hand because they are just opinions from previous historians, they do not actually tell you as much about the period they purport to be about as they do about the period they were written.



Modern secondary sources can be checked because they have proper bibliographical citations, and they are better because they treat history as an art and a science, not a literary exercise.

So no, I'm not contradicting myself. Here we generally expect students to cite sources no more than twenty years old in support of their arguments, unless the source has stood up to previous attacks, of course.



If you want my opinions on the Catholic Church, I suggest you start another topic as the precise nature and flaws in that ancient edifice are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make for the last page or so.

Regardless of the evidence being "outdated", I can still hold my own opinion without falling under heavy scrutiny. Since my opinion is formed from something that cannot be cited nor can it be explained. So you can believe in your god, and I wont care. Just don't force anything down my throat. This is always the case with religion, a topic that is very touchy. I absolutely hate and detest religion. But, right now, it is tolerable.

I'd rather not make another thread about religion. Your aggressiveness and hostility towards my half-arsed, and to be honest, joke of a theory, is why I'm still debating. My intent was not to disprove religion, it was to show that religion is not as innocent as it seems (well in my original post, it was stating that religion is false). Religion is becoming a social thing. People that share the same religion get on well (most of the time), but can have ... uhhh... disagreements with others. This is one of the reasons why I dislike religion. To a lot of people, it is not about enlightenment or faith or being true to oneself, it is almost becoming like a cult.

Sure, there are certain things scientist's cannot explain, but that does not prove the existence of a god (see, now I am disproving religion).

"Hey, look! There's a hangar. There MUST be a plane in it." That is not always the case (crappy analogy, I know). What if there is no god? Maybe there is something out there who Created everything, but just went to sleep? And according to many religions, god made humans as a spitting image of himself. Why us? Why not any other form of life? And if we are meant to an image of god, why so much imperfection in his creation? Greed, hate, lust, war, envy. These are all human qualities. If god wanted everyone to be happy, why would these attributes exist? Now, some might say "He's testing the faith and goodwill of each human being."

And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

If the presence of a god is uncertain and cannot be measured by any means possible, it is then safe to assume that god does not exist. If any evidence is found in relation to the presence of a god, the assumption is instantly discarded and replaced by a new assumption.

I don't feel like arguing anymore, since they seem to be falling on deaf ears. And also my argument is really crappy and I seem to contradicting myself in certain instances in this thread. I've had a long day.

[Sigurd]

And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

I was expecting you to bring this into the debate in light of your previous post.
You are completely on the ball here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Regardless of the evidence being "outdated", I can still hold my own opinion without falling under heavy scrutiny. Since my opinion is formed from something that cannot be cited nor can it be explained. So you can believe in your god, and I wont care. Just don't force anything down my throat. This is always the case with religion, a topic that is very touchy. I absolutely hate and detest religion. But, right now, it is tolerable.

You claim not to care, then you say "hate and detest", I call that a mixed message myself.

I'm really not bothered by your views, I have been by turns an atheist, a rationalist, a worshipper of Thor (briefly) and an Arrian before becoming an Augustinian.

It's not your views I object to it's the sloppy and combative way you present them, and the fallacies you believe about your opponents.

I'd rather not make another thread about religion. Your aggressiveness and hostility towards my half-arsed, and to be honest, joke of a theory, is why I'm still debating. My intent was not to disprove religion, it was to show that religion is not as innocent as it seems (well in my original post, it was stating that religion is false). Religion is becoming a social thing. People that share the same religion get on well (most of the time), but can have ... uhhh... disagreements with others. This is one of the reasons why I dislike religion. To a lot of people, it is not about enlightenment or faith or being true to oneself, it is almost becoming like a cult.

Christianity is per definition a "Mystery Cult", that's nothing new, and religion has always been social - see this is what I'm talking about.

Sure, there are certain things scientist's cannot explain, but that does not prove the existence of a god (see, now I am disproving religion).

No, you're just arguing against religion, you haven't provided a single "proof" of anything - Viking has provided some attempted proofs, but I think they are flawed.

"Hey, look! There's a hangar. There MUST be a plane in it." That is not always the case (crappy analogy, I know). What if there is no god? Maybe there is something out there who Created everything, but just went to sleep? And according to many religions, god made humans as a spitting image of himself. Why us? Why not any other form of life? And if we are meant to an image of god, why so much imperfection in his creation? Greed, hate, lust, war, envy. These are all human qualities. If god wanted everyone to be happy, why would these attributes exist? Now, some might say "He's testing the faith and goodwill of each human being."

The short answer to your question is, "free will", longer ones invole definitions of "image" and "likeness", and nobody said "spitting image" anyway.

And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

I would call a translated Bible a teritary source if anything, almost none of the books collected therein purport to be written by people who were there.

If the presence of a god is uncertain and cannot be measured by any means possible, it is then safe to assume that god does not exist. If any evidence is found in relation to the presence of a god, the assumption is instantly discarded and replaced by a new assumption.

"Safe" to assume? I think not.

You don't know what happens when you die - worst case scenario your brain becomes starved of oxygen and shuts down after your heart stops, there's no reason to believe that'll be pleasent, or there might be a God and a heaven, but you don't believe so you just get brain-shutdown.

In situations like this I think optimism is better than pessimism.

I don't feel like arguing anymore, since they seem to be falling on deaf ears. And also my argument is really crappy and I seem to contradicting myself in certain instances in this thread. I've had a long day.

Well, you're the one switching between bad history attacking the Roman Church and abstract arguments against religion.

[Papewaio]

PVC I'm liking your method of debate very much.

I disagree with your beliefs. But if I was stuck on a desert island your opinions would make for some very interesting conversations. Much better then someone who believes because they were told to either through faith or science.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC I'm liking your method of debate very much.

I disagree with your beliefs. But if I was stuck on a desert island your opinions would make for some very interesting conversations. Much better then someone who believes because they were told to either through faith or science.

I'm even more entertaining with a pint in hand.

[spankythehippo]

You claim not to care, then you say "hate and detest", I call that a mixed message myself.

I don't care if someone is religious, but I hate religion itself.

I'm really not bothered by your views, I have been by turns an atheist, a rationalist, a worshipper of Thor (briefly) and an Arrian before becoming an Augustinian.

It's not your views I object to it's the sloppy and combative way you present them, and the fallacies you believe about your opponents.

I know my arguments could do with some improvement. But I just don't put much effort into proving a point on a forum. If you so wish, I could improve my points and back them up with reliable sources.

No, you're just arguing against religion, you haven't provided a single "proof" of anything - Viking has provided some attempted proofs, but I think they are flawed.

You cannot prove religion. As I said, as is scientific practice, if it can't be measured, it does not exist. This phrase "It does not exist" is a theory, and a theory that is more plausible than it's antithesis. Lack of any evidence of a god is evidence in itself. Picture this as a court scenario. Religion is the prosecutor and the god-deniers are the defendants. Say, that the god-deniers have committed a crime. Obviously, the prosecutors must have some evidence to convict the god-deniers.

"Your honour, we have no evidence, but we know they committed the crime." Is that acceptable in a court of law? I think not. There is no actual evidence that proves there is a god. Only the uncertainty of the formation of everything. This is what really annoys me when religious people start yelling at me about.

"Well if you don't know how everything was made, there must be a god." Science has not completely dismissed the notion of a god. It just has not taken it into consideration, since uncertainty is not proof.

"Safe" to assume? I think not.

You don't know what happens when you die - worst case scenario your brain becomes starved of oxygen and shuts down after your heart stops, there's no reason to believe that'll be pleasent, or there might be a God and a heaven, but you don't believe so you just get brain-shutdown.

In situations like this I think optimism is better than pessimism.

So you're proving my previous point somewhere in this thread, that religion is a way to combat the fear of death. "Optimism is better than pessimism". That is completely subjective.

Well, you're the one switching between bad history attacking the Roman Church and abstract arguments against religion.

In my completely subjective opinion, the Roman Church is just begging to be attacked. But this is a matter of interpretation.

"Abstract arguments against religion"? Religion itself is abstract. Most of the stories preached by religion are either abstract or are showing the faults of human attributes. In many cases, they complement each other. An abstract story with a moral about what you should do as a human being. Perfect example (maybe), the Jeebus miracle that fed 5000 guys, or something like that.

I was expecting you to bring this into the debate in light of your previous post.
You are completely on the ball here.

I was wondering why no one mentioned it before.

[atheotes]

Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

Your similey lacks force outside of a polytheistic system, but nobody does polytheism today - not even Hindus.

Are you sure? I disagree with you. Polytheism is part of the Hindu practice.

PS: Apologies for bringing up something bygone that was not even the topic of discussion...I simply couldnt move on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you sure? I disagree with you. Polytheism is part of the Hindu practice.

PS: Apologies for bringing up something bygone that was not even the topic of discussion...I simply couldnt move on.

I am sure, Hinduism is not theologically Polytheistic, only its legends are - and no I don't understand that but Muslims don't understand the Holy Trinity, generally speaking.

[atheotes]

I am sure, Hinduism is not theologically Polytheistic, only its legends are - and no I don't understand that but Muslims don't understand the Holy Trinity, generally speaking.

You might want to check your sources about Hinduism not being theologically Polytheistic . Any source that tries to explain Hinduism within the framework similar to that of religions like Christianity/Islam is over generalizing and inaccurate.
ps: it is not only the Muslims who dont understand the holy trinity, a lot of Hindus think the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You might want to check your sources about Hinduism not being theologically Polytheistic . Any source that tries to explain Hinduism within the framework similar to that of religions like Christianity/Islam is over generalizing and inaccurate.
ps: it is not only the Muslims who dont understand the holy trinity, a lot of Hindus think the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic :)

God is one but His forms are many?

That's the definition of theological monotheism.

Of course, that doesn't exclude polytheistic worship, but that was not what I was talking about.

[atheotes]

God is one but His forms are many?

That's the definition of theological monotheism.

Of course, that doesn't exclude polytheistic worship, but that was not what I was talking about.

That definition effectivey means Hinduism is NOT theologically monotheistic. There are different "avatars" for some Gods and they are worshipped as well. But the different Gods are not considered as the forms of one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That definition effectivey means Hinduism is NOT theologically monotheistic. There are different "avatars" for some Gods and they are worshipped as well. But the different Gods are not considered as the forms of one.

Are not all Hindu Deities eminations of the one Brahman?

I'm being serious in asking, this is what I have read, essentially that Brahman is the one God and all the various deities are eminations from Him, in the sense that they manifest different aspects of the Divine whole.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I remember one guy on the TWC forums identified as both 'Hindu' and 'atheist'. I can't remember his explanation but apparently Hinduism covers a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs.

[Papewaio]

I know a Jewish atheist. There is a difference in culture, race and religion.

So although he identified with the genetics and culture of his heritage he did not believe in the religious parts his ancestors believed in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know a Jewish atheist. There is a difference in culture, race and religion.

So although he identified with the genetics and culture of his heritage he did not believe in the religious parts his ancestors believed in.

"Jewish" is considered an ethnicity though, "Hindu" isn't.

So, while I take your point, I don't think it's quite the same - and in any case I am talking purely theologically. If there are Hindu who want to see their religion as polytheistic, unlike the "Imperialist" Muslim and Christian religions (and there are such Hindus), that is their right, but that does not make them theologically coherent.

[Papewaio]

Hinduism is a meta faith. There are sections that are into monotheism, polytheism and others which are atheists.

[The Stranger]

You cannot prove religion. As I said, as is scientific practice, if it can't be measured, it does not exist. This phrase "It does not exist" is a theory, and a theory that is more plausible than it's antithesis. Lack of any evidence of a god is evidence in itself. Picture this as a court scenario. Religion is the prosecutor and the god-deniers are the defendants. Say, that the god-deniers have committed a crime. Obviously, the prosecutors must have some evidence to convict the god-deniers.

WOW... since when did that happen? I never knew that the non-observational entities argument was decided in the favor of the realists... afaik the debate is still going on and if we may base anything on citations it would seem that the constructive empirists are winning.

in any sense it is way to simple to say that if it cannot be measured it does not exist... or the contrary, that if something is measured it automatically "exists" (in reality, not just as an effect of the measurement).

If you so wish, I could improve my points and back them up with reliable sources.

please do

[spankythehippo]

WOW... since when did that happen? I never knew that the non-observational entities argument was decided in the favor of the realists... afaik the debate is still going on and if we may base anything on citations it would seem that the constructive empirists are winning.

in any sense it is way to simple to say that if it cannot be measured it does not exist... or the contrary, that if something is measured it automatically "exists" (in reality, not just as an effect of the measurement).

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.

please do

I could, but it would require more work on my part. So I'll "try" to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.

The position is really polemical - the correct statement would be, "If something cannot be measured it cannot be empirically shown to exist.

I.e., we can't prove it.

However, it does not necessarily follow that because you cannot measure it, it does not exist. Indeed, all you are ever measuring is an event, and then you postulate a cause.

I don't know what you have been taught, but it sounds very like scientific method without philosophy of science.

[The Stranger]

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.

measuring something is definitly not observing... there are non-OBSERVATIONAL entities (unless you wish to reduce them to observational data but the logical-constructivists tried this and failed), and they are the entire reason why this debate raging within the scientific world. take the "force" of newton, or the "electro magnetic field" of einstein, no one has ever observed this, yet they have made calculations and predictions according to these assumptions that came true. the entire crux here is that because they are non-observational and you do not know what you are measuring. and it might be something entirely differen which has the same empirical effect (empirical equivalent theories, poincare vs einstein).

i just followed an entire course on this (i didnt know about many of it before either to be honest).

there are alot of problems, some more well known such as what is an accurate definition of truth, what is a good method for scientific research. how do you gain knowledge but also lesser, such as what are the criteria for justification and confirmation. do we go with deduction, induction or abduction. do we take a probabilistic approach or a different one. are we realists, empirist, constructivists. what exactly is an accurate definition of causality. these are all debates that are still going on, some more than others, about what we can say about certain things we observe. though yes, it is more philosophy of science than really science itself, but philosophy of science without science is empty but science without philosophy of science is blind.

I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

this does seem awefully lot what religious people are doing and what most ppl blame them for doing wrong... isnt it?

[Papewaio]

"Philosophy is what you do on your tea break, Science is what you do on your job."

I do not believe science is blind without philosophy. It just isn't as well rounded.

Since science isn't about absolutes that kind of weights it towards using probabilities less than 100% certainty.
Also deduction would be more common in some areas say theortical physics than say observational astronomy.

I understand the arguement that just because it hasn't been observed does not mean it does not exist. Europeans believed that only white swans existed and that a black swan was a made up fallacy. Then they found Australia and had a fit when well black swans were swanning around. I'm sure that if that gave them entity envy they must have thought that platypus were taking the joke too far.

Not entirely sure when you say no one has directly observed newtons force? Are you saying the label itself or the effect? After all we have inbuilt into ourselves motion detectors that feel force from gut to inner ear to muscle flex. You can deduce somethings mass by the force with which it compresses a spring or a fluid.

As for electromagnetic waves postulated by Maxwell (Einstein's relativity is a partial aoutput of EM theory not the cornerstone of it). I'm puzzled at what point observation is if seeing is not believing after all sight relies on light as do lasers, magnets use electromagnetic waves and radio and microwaves. I understand that our eyes only register when approximately seven or more photons excite our eyes. I understand we do not see electromagnetic waves but we can make predictions that we measure with a very high level of certainty. We can measure EM waves and we use them to measure with all the time from laser rangefinders to radar to GPS.

[The Stranger]

Not entirely sure when you say no one has directly observed newtons force? Are you saying the label itself or the effect? After all we have inbuilt into ourselves motion detectors that feel force from gut to inner ear to muscle flex. You can deduce somethings mass by the force with which it compresses a spring or a fluid.

you can observe the effect, and you can draw conclusions from that, but there is no cause to be observed so you are basically in the blind there. then you have a theory which makes certain predictions, newton's laws being one of such, these predictions match the effects you have observed and thus you assume that this force being postulated in newtons laws exist, but you cannot actually observe it. does it refer to something real in reality or are they just theoretic approaches to something we can never meaningfully talk about etc etc

[Papewaio]

Sorry not sure if your definition of observation is too rigorous and therefore discounts all our senses or I'm missing a subtle context of this approach.

Can you define observation?

After all if I ride an elevator I can feel-observe changes in force. If I jump I feel force and observe a cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry not sure if your definition of observation is too rigorous and therefore discounts all our senses or I'm missing a subtle context of this approach.

Can you define observation?

After all if I ride an elevator I can feel-observe changes in force. If I jump I feel force and observe a cause.

Not quite, the force is gravity, what you observe is that in jumping you push up and get pulled down, but whether gravity is pushing you or pulling you is not immidiately apparent.

To take your "coffee break" quote to task, sorry:

Philosophy of science is about aprreciating adn internalising the formal nature of the scientific method and it's reliance on metaphysical, and unprovable assumptions.

The key assumptions are that:

1. We can observe accurately.

2. The world is ordered and operates on cause and effect.

[The Stranger]

it is nothing of me personal, im just putting forward some things i have just recently learned.

and from that, there are few different definitions, Van Fraassen says something is only observational if it is observed or can be observed with the bare eye by a normal individual. even if we broaden this to sound and touch, imo this is too rigorous.

observing is something that can only be done with the senses i guess, and the difference between what can be observed and what not is gradual. we can see a rock, we can't see an atom and there are things such as germs which we can see only with microscopes. in history many people have spoken of atoms but they have given it all different kinds of properties. are they still talking about the same thing? or are they talking about different things. you cannot really know because you cannot observe it. you can only infer its existence.

we can use all kinds of technology to measure certain things but we can rightfully wonder how much these results actually say about what really exists. i guess its a delicate balance and not interesting for daily life and perhaps not even that interesting for daily scientific practice.

PVC already answered your elevator question.

[Papewaio]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Fraassen farts obviously aren't observable to a blind person who without sight is not capable of observation? Does he discount the whiff test in chemistry? The reason humans sense things is so we can make a viable reaction to our environment. We smell flatulence because the hydrogen sulfide is a potentially lethal gas. You don't need to see a fart to know its there. A philosophy that can't even deal with flatulence how viable is that?

Add to that our memory corrupts what we observe. That what you see as blue you cannot guarantee that others see the same blue. Means that vision is not some sort of superior sense above all other ones.

=][=

Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Right yes, your eyes can't accurately measure speed - they also can't accurately measure your instruments, and even if they could your brain can't interpret them without bias.

So, basically, all your "hard" science is still built on mushy humanity.

Philosophy of #science is all about appreciating that.

[The Stranger]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Fraassen farts obviously aren't observable to a blind person who without sight is not capable of observation? Does he discount the whiff test in chemistry? The reason humans sense things is so we can make a viable reaction to our environment. We smell flatulence because the hydrogen sulfide is a potentially lethal gas. You don't need to see a fart to know its there. A philosophy that can't even deal with flatulence how viable is that?

Add to that our memory corrupts what we observe. That what you see as blue you cannot guarantee that others see the same blue. Means that vision is not some sort of superior sense above all other ones.

=][=

Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

well like i said, it is not my definition. i am just putting forward some issues and problems i've recently been introduced with. What i have just proposed is from van Fraassen, one of the leading Philosopher of Science at this moment. and yes it is very limited, and yes the point of this argument is that indeed we cannot really "trust" the results we get from these intstruments in the sense that they say something about things truly existing in our world. according to this view the instruments create results and do not find them. ofcourse it is hard to maintain in certain situations, there is a counterexample of someone drawing something on a piece of paper, then the piece of paper gets decreased in size until it cannot be seen with the bare eye (so it should be non-observational). then you put the paper under the microscope and you will see the same drawing (now this is assumed, i dont think anyone has ever done this), if you do see the same drawing it would be kind of odd that the microscope created exactly the same result as that has been drawn on the paper. and thus they do not create results but accurately portray reality.

but this is the grey zone... atoms, quarks, electrons there is where it gets really murky.

i think i can explain why he has confined himself to sight, if i am not mistaken it is because he is mostly talking about astronomy and physics, not about chemistry and biology etc. but like i said, you can expand the same philosophy to include the other senses, as long as you put more or less the same restrictions. anyway you cannot dismiss it so fast just because it is limited. all tho i do agree with you that it is too restricting.

and yes our senses can fail us, in fact, our senses might be fooling us all the time (skepticism) yet we do not believe this (one of the fundamental notions of science, as PVC has pointed out already). the instruments can fail us too, they might be fooling us at all times and even worse even if the instruments do not fail us, we might not be able to accurately interpret the instrument, which makes using instruments possibly even less reliable then using your senses. yet we would trust our life easier to a computer these days (i think) than to a human being (atleast in some cases).

Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

i do not really understand where this comes from. there are a whole lot of different problems with this but i dont see how they directly relate to what we were talking about earlier.

also i've never understood why it is a virtue for a theory to be simpler than the other, why do we assume that we universe is simple or that when it is simple on one occasion that it will always be simple. or that even if we have found a simple theory which can make the same predictions that a complicated theory can make with the same empirical results that the simple one is a better theory than the complicated one and what this has to do with any of them being true of close to the truth.

the point of these non-observational entities is not that we make predictions which are not accurate, it is that we make theories about certain things of which we do not know if and how they actually exist.


how is the big bang not a cause. (ive always found this rather odd, and i've seen even hawkings fall pray to this in some discovery channel documentary. he had no problem explaining why it was pointless to ask whether there was a cause for the big bang or if there was time before the big bang. and since there was no time before the big bang, there was no before the big bang and thus you cannot speak of a cause for the big bang because a cause and effect happens in time. yet then he goes back to religion and says i never understood how there could be a god, who has created this god? in fact he is asking, what is the cause for god? but why not apply the same logic there, god exists out of time, there was no time before god created time and since cause and effect can only exist in time, god had no cause, there is no point asking who or what is the cause of god... needless to say i find the answer unsatisfactionary in both cases)