Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → "There is no truth."

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: "There is no truth."

 (Read 32250 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #30 - April 05, 2015, 09:15 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:11 PM
    About the scientific method? No. It's already been done very well. I don't have anything to say about it that hasn't already been said.


    Oh. No. But Jedi asked if you'd written a book yet, and you just linked to someone else's book. Made me wonder if you had once planned to write a book, yourself. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #31 - April 05, 2015, 09:18 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:14 PM
    Honestly, no.

    I understand what you're saying if I were to accept that the thing that we are currently using daily, in actual science, which we call the scientific method, is something that can be called a theory. But I don't. It's not a theory, it's a method.

    Why do you differentiate between a theory and a method?

    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:14 PM
    And yes, the method had to be tweaked over time to get to be the tool that gives us the only correct results that it is today, there's no denying that. But that doesn't make it any more a theory than a digital micrometer is a theory? We had to work on that and make earlier prototypes to get that right, too.

    Yes but the method by which we refuted old digital-meter-prototypes is by using empirical evidence to rule them out. And we can't use empirical evidence to rule out old scientific-method-prototypes.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #32 - April 05, 2015, 09:19 PM
    Quote
    Why do you differentiate between a theory and a method?


    ...For real, Rami? I'm not trying to be rude, but...they are literally and actually different.

    Quote
    Yes but the method by which we refuted old prototypes is by using empirical evidence to rule them out. And we can't use empirical evidence to rule out old scientific-method-prototypes.


    We ruled old methods out because they were not giving us the correct results. The current method gives us the correct results. You're making this way more crazy than it needs to be. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #33 - April 05, 2015, 09:20 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:10 PM
    Considering that you haven't explained how i'm wrong, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

    You often make a name for yourself in science by proving things wrong. Everything is scrutinised. The fact checking basically amounts to science having it's own immune system. It's correcting and corrected by it's very nature. As for your comment on how the scientific method doesn't make any predictions about physical reality, that is EXACTLY what it does. As for your philosophy comment, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence, I'll grant you that, but it has no truths in the way that science has truths.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #34 - April 05, 2015, 09:21 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:15 PM
    ...For real, Rami? I'm not trying to be rude, but...they are literally and actually different.

    Different in any relevant way to our discussion? If so, you can explain. If you can't explain, then there's no reason to believe that there's any difference relevant to our discussion.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #35 - April 05, 2015, 09:25 PM
    ...Yes, of course it is. You're describing a process applicable to theories and trying to apply it to what is essentially a five-point checklist that I use when I do an experiment to make sure I'm not just wasting everyone's time and resources.

    You can't go around just saying something is a theory without demonstrating how and why it's a theory, and throwing the burden on other people to prove that it's not. Or you can, but you're going to also be wasting everyone's time. How is a potato not a theory, Rami? Come on, prove it to me. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #36 - April 05, 2015, 09:25 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:20 PM
    You often make a name for yourself in science by proving things wrong. Everything is scrutinised. The fact checking basically amounts to science having it's own immune system. It's correcting and corrected by it's very nature. As for your comment on how the scientific method doesn't make any predictions about physical reality, that is EXACTLY what it does.

    No. It's scientific theories which make predictions about the physical world.

    The scientific method itself does not make any predictions about the physical world. The scientific method is a process of creating scientific theories which make predictions about the physical world, and ruling out scientific theories whose empirical predictions contradict empirical evidence.


    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:20 PM
    As for your philosophy comment, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence, I'll grant you that, but it has no truths in the way that science has truths.

    Scientific theories explain physical reality. And these theories are error-corrected by comparing them against physical reality.

    Non-scientific theories explain other stuff. And these theories are not error-corrected by comparing them against physical reality, since they don't make any predictions about physical reality.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #37 - April 05, 2015, 09:27 PM
    Scientific theories are part of the scientific method. parrot
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #38 - April 05, 2015, 09:29 PM
    Would you agree that human rights are the product of philosophy.whereas the theory of gravity is a product of science?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #39 - April 05, 2015, 09:31 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:25 PM
    ...Yes, of course it is. You're describing a process applicable to theories and trying to apply it to what is essentially a five-point checklist that I use when I do an experiment to make sure I'm not just wasting everyone's time and resources.

    You can't go around just saying something is a theory without demonstrating how and why it's a theory, and throwing the burden on other people to prove that it's not. Or you can, but you're going to also be wasting everyone's time. How is a potato not a theory, Rami? Come on, prove it to me. Grin

    You seem to think that I'm the first one to call the scientific method as theory. I'm not. Not even close.

    I don't understand why you have a problem with understanding that a method is a theory.

    Maybe this will help.

    A theory is an idea. A method is also an idea.

    Ideas are created by guesses and criticism.

    Scientific ideas (aka theories) are ones that make predictions about physical reality, and which can be ruled out by comparing those predictions against physical reality. We guess scientific theories and rule them out with criticism -- explanations of flaws in ideas -- where one type of criticism is an explanation explaining how a theories predictions contradict empirical evidence.

    The method explained above is also an idea/theory.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #40 - April 05, 2015, 09:33 PM
    Are you aware of the difference between a hypothesis and an established theory in science?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #41 - April 05, 2015, 09:34 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:27 PM
    Scientific theories are part of the scientific method. parrot

    They are distinct from it.

    This might help explain:

    Say you have a scientific theory created 100 years ago.

    Let's say that since then we changed our scientific method SM34 (to a new updated version SM35).

    Does having refuted the earlier version of the scientific method SM34 imply that the 100 year old scientific theory is now refuted? No. Do you agree?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #42 - April 05, 2015, 09:34 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:33 PM
    Are you aware of the difference between a hypothesis and an established theory in science?

    Yes and that distinction is not relevant to anything I've said here. If you think otherwise, please explain.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #43 - April 05, 2015, 09:35 PM
    Quote
    You seem to think that I'm the first one to call the scientific method as theory. I'm not. Not even close.


    Well, no, I've heard scientifically-illiterate people call the scientific method all sorts of things, too. I know you're not alone in how you're talking about it as though it isn't actually just the only way of conducting an experiment that gives useful results. People like that are two-a-penny.

    I've clearly defined my terms regarding what I am speaking of when I say "the scientific method." If you have something else in mind, that might be the problem. If you don't, I still can't disagree more with your premise.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #44 - April 05, 2015, 09:35 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:29 PM
    Would you agree that human rights are the product of philosophy.whereas the theory of gravity is a product of science?

    Yes.

    And the scientific method is a product of philosophy, not science.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #45 - April 05, 2015, 09:36 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:35 PM
    Well, no, I've heard scientifically-illiterate people call the scientific method all sorts of things, too. I know you're not alone in how you're talking about it as though it isn't actually just the only way of conducting an experiment that gives useful results. People like that are two-a-penny.

    I've clearly defined my terms regarding what I am speaking of when I say "the scientific method." If you have something else in mind, that might be the problem. If you don't, I still can't disagree more with your premise.

    So you're just going to ignore the rest of the text I had in that post?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #46 - April 05, 2015, 09:39 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:35 PM
    Yes.

    And the scientific method is a product of philosophy, not science.

    No, it's not. It was born from it but it is distinct from it.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #47 - April 05, 2015, 09:41 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:34 PM
    Does having refuted the earlier version of the scientific method SM34 imply that the 100 year old scientific theory is now refuted? No. Do you agree?

    If the method used to reach a conclusion was faulty then the result is not trustworthy.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #48 - April 05, 2015, 09:41 PM
    Quote
    I've clearly defined my terms regarding what I am speaking of when I say "the scientific method." If you have something else in mind, that might be the problem. If you don't, I still can't disagree more with your premise.

    What we call things doesn't matter. If you don't want to call the scientific method a theory, fine. That doesn't change anything.

    My explanation is still the same.

    A scientific theory makes predictions about physical reality, and we rule out theories by testing their predictions against physical reality. (This process of creating scientific theories and ruling them out is the scientific method.)

    The scientific method does not make any predictions about physical reality, so we can't rule it out by empirical evidence since it doesn't make any empirical predictions. Do you agree with this part?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #49 - April 05, 2015, 09:42 PM
    The part about me reminding you of what I was talking about specifically and saying that, if you still insist on this theory definition, I will have to disagree with you was kind of meant to address the rest of your post? But if you insist that I must go through and criticize it piece by piece, I suppose I shall.


    Quote
    A theory is idea. A method is also an idea.


    I'm going to give you a taste of your own medicine on this one: I reject what you're saying. It's not true. Both literally and actually, they are two different things. My source is the dictionary and the encyclopedia.

    If you disagree with my rejection, please explain.

    Quote
    Ideas are created by guesses and criticism.


    Some of them, I guess. I once had an idea to put Ritz crackers in the VCR slot as a child and I'm pretty sure that was just an on-the-fly decision.

    Quote
    Scientific ideas (aka theories) are ones that make predictions about physical reality, and which can be ruled out by comparing those predictions against physical reality. We guess scientific theories and rule them out with criticism -- explanations of flaws in ideas -- where one type of criticism is an explanation explaining how a theories predictions contradict empirical evidence.

    The method explained above is also an idea/theory.


    Awaiting the explanation I asked for.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #50 - April 05, 2015, 09:43 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:41 PM
    The scientific method does not make any predictions about physical reality, so we can't rule it out by empirical evidence since it doesn't make any empirical predictions. Do you agree with this part?


    You keep saying "rule it out." Rule what out, Rami?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #51 - April 05, 2015, 09:43 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:41 PM
    A scientific theory makes predictions about physical reality, and we rule out theories by testing their predictions against physical reality. (This process of creating scientific theories and ruling them out is the scientific method.)

    The scientific method does not make any predictions about physical reality, so we can't rule it out by empirical evidence since it doesn't make any empirical predictions. Do you agree with this part?

    A theory is part of the method. They go hand in hand.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #52 - April 05, 2015, 09:44 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:41 PM
    If the method used to reach a conclusion was faulty then the result is not trustworthy.

    And how would you find out that the current scientific method is faulty? Could you see what predictions the scientific method about physical reality and test those predictions against physical reality? No. If you think otherwise, then explain. Explain what predictions the scientific method makes about the physical world.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #53 - April 05, 2015, 09:45 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:43 PM
    You keep saying "rule it out." Rule what out, Rami?

    "it" is old versions of the scientific method that have been ruled out because we found a better one. one that doesn't have the flaw that the older one has.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #54 - April 05, 2015, 09:46 PM
    Quote
    And how would you find out that the current scientific method is faulty?


    Because we'd be getting weird and conflicting results when conducting scientific experiments.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #55 - April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:45 PM
    "it" is old versions of the scientific method that have been ruled out because we found a better one. one that doesn't have the flaw that the older one has.


    Ah, Rami...you do realize you're just talking about a common step-by-step guide for conducting an experiment that leads to more accurate results, right? Just because we've slapped a name on that process doesn't make it anything greater than that. You are, again, making this into something totally insane.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #56 - April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:42 PM
    Awaiting the explanation I asked for.

    I made this easier. I took out the word theory.

    Now your criticism -- that the scientific method isn't a theory -- doesn't apply, since I'm no longer using the word "theory".

    In case you missed it, here it is again:

    What we call things doesn't matter. If you don't want to call the scientific method a theory, fine. That doesn't change anything. My explanation is still the same.

    A scientific theory makes predictions about physical reality, and we rule out scientific theories by testing their predictions against physical reality. (This process of creating scientific theories and ruling them out is the scientific method.)

    The scientific method does not make any predictions about physical reality, so we can't rule it out by empirical evidence since it doesn't make any empirical predictions. Do you agree with this part?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #57 - April 05, 2015, 09:50 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    Ah, Rami...you do realize you're just talking about a common step-by-step guide for conducting an experiment that leads to more accurate results, right? Just because we've slapped a name on that process doesn't make it anything greater than that. You are, again, making this into something totally insane.

    No I'm not talking about step-by-step guide for conducting an experiment.

    I'm talking about improving the scientific method itself, such that the new version is better than the last one, has fewer flaws.

    Did you think that the scientific method doesn't evolve?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #58 - April 05, 2015, 09:50 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:44 PM
    And how would you find out that the current scientific method is faulty?

    What lua said. Also keep in mind my earlier post about how science corrects itself by it's nature.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #59 - April 05, 2015, 09:51 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    I made this easier. I took out the word theory.

    Now your criticism -- that the scientific method isn't a theory -- doesn't apply, since I'm no longer using the word "theory".

    In case you missed it, here it is again:

    Yes, I saw. And then I asked what you meant by "rule it out" and you replied, and then I replied to better answer the question in the post you just quoted.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »