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
Yesterday at 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 32237 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #60 - April 05, 2015, 09:53 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    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.


    Oh I see, and I replied to that with this:

    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 #61 - April 05, 2015, 09:54 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:50 PM
    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.


    Okay, so...you're saying that the scientific method is a philosophy, because the scientific method cannot be used to come up with an even better, shinier version of "ask a question, try to answer it, do an experiment, analyze the results?"
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #62 - April 05, 2015, 09:54 PM
    ...I know, Rami. Grin I can see your posts just fine. Give me a minute to answer them, one at a time.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #63 - April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:05 PM
    That book has already been written. _The Beginning of Infinity_.

    You can read the intro here: http://beginningofinfinity.com/excerpt


    I've read that book mate...I bought it because of all the idiotic apologists talking about scientists not understanding philosophy and do you know what Rami? Deautch comes round to saying that the Scientific Method is the ebst we got for exploring the world around us and criticuing theories...

    In a sentence what are you talking about?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #64 - April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    Right.

    You can't use empirical evidence to refute the scientific method.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #65 - April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:48 PM
    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 theory in science is a certain thing. If you want to call it something else feel free but it's unchanged. You could call it a swizzlesausage if you like, but if what you mean by swizzlesausage is what others mean when they say theory then it's the same thing, just confusing to those who don't realise what you mean by swizzlesausage.

    ~A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.~
    `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 #66 - April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    I've read that book mate...I bought it because of all the idiotic apologists talking about scientists not understanding philosophy and do you know what Rami? Deautch comes round to saying that the Scientific Method is the ebst we got for exploring the world around us and criticuing theories...

    In a sentence what are you talking about?

    Yes it is the best we got for exploring the world around us.

    Did you think I was contradicting this? If so, please explain.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #67 - April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:53 PM
    Oh I see, and I replied to that with this:

    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?


    That's what scientists and philosophers ahve been doing since day one...

    Just what are you supposedly unveiling here?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #68 - April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    Yes it is the best we got for exploring the world around us.

    Did you think I was contradicting this? If so, please explain.


    Great. Now what?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #69 - April 05, 2015, 09:57 PM
    ...For real? You agree with that? Grin

    Oh, Rami...you do make this place more interesting. Welcome back.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #70 - April 05, 2015, 09:57 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    Right.

    You can't use empirical evidence to refute the scientific method.

    That's exactly what you do.
    `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 #71 - April 05, 2015, 09:58 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    That's what scientists and philosophers ahve been doing since day one...

    Just what are you supposedly unveiling here?

    Huh? Who said I'm unveiling anything? I'm saying the same thing that Deutsch says.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #72 - April 05, 2015, 09:59 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:57 PM
    That's exactly what you do.

    No. And your bald assertions here aren't persuasive.

    I asked you how you would refute the scientific method, and you didn't explain. Instead you referred to what Ian said and I explained why that is wrong, and you didn't address my explanation.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #73 - April 05, 2015, 10:00 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 09:56 PM
    Great. Now what?

    What do you mean?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #74 - April 05, 2015, 10:00 PM
    :( Ian?!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #75 - April 05, 2015, 10:01 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 09:55 PM
    A theory in science is a certain thing. If you want to call it something else feel free but it's unchanged. You could call it a swizzlesausage if you like, but if what you mean by swizzlesausage is what others mean when they say theory then it's the same thing, just confusing to those who don't realise what you mean by swizzlesausage.

    ~A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.~

    You are confused. Iua was objecting to me calling the scientific method a theory. She wasn't objecting to me calling a scientific theory a theory.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #76 - April 05, 2015, 10:01 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 10:00 PM
    :( Ian?!

    oops sorry
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #77 - April 05, 2015, 10:02 PM
    Cheesy No problem, Rami.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #78 - April 05, 2015, 10:02 PM
    Great Rami! I don't think David reduces science to just a philosophy though as he's invovled in a very niche area of quantumn computer physics thingymajig....philosophy is useful in some areas but not necessary in ALL aspects of science such as engineering (physics and maths) and the scientists at the Hydron Collidor thingy do a better job at explaining stuff than philosophers in dickie bow ties....


    Science and philosophy are good friends but not wholly dependent one ach other and science evovles organically via trial and error without too much interference (unecessary) from philosophers...

    ***HEAD SHOTS BY PLATINGA****
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #79 - April 05, 2015, 10:06 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:02 PM
    Great Rami! I don't think David reduces science to just a philosophy

    neither do i. i said *the scientific method* is a philosophical theory, not a scientific theory.
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:02 PM
    though as he's invovled in a very niche area of quantumn computer physics thingymajig....philosophy is useful in some areas but not necessary in ALL aspects of science such as engineering (physics and maths) and the scientists at the Hydron Collidor thingy do a better job at explaining stuff than philosophers in dickie bow ties....

    This is confused. The scientific method involves interpreting the meaning of empirical evidence, for example, whether or not it actually contradicts the predictions that a scientific theory makes. Also, the very predictions that the scientific theory makes are themselves interpretations. And all interpretations are theory-laden. That means that in order to determine that an interpretation is wrong, you need philosophy to do that.
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:02 PM
    Science and philosophy are good friends but not wholly dependent one ach other and science evovles organically via trial and error without too much interference (unecessary) from philosophers...

    Philosophy is not dependent on science. Science is dependent on philosophy. It's one-way.

    And I'm not saying anything that contradicts David Deutsch. If you don't agree with me on this, I can send this to him to check. Actually you could too. He responds to private emails. I talk to him regularly.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #80 - April 05, 2015, 10:11 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:59 PM
    No. And your bald assertions here aren't persuasive.

    Both lua and myself have answered already. Your bold assertions here aren't persuasive.
    `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 #81 - April 05, 2015, 10:12 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 10:01 PM
    You are confused. Iua was objecting to me calling the scientific method a theory. She wasn't objecting to me calling a scientific theory a theory.

    Am I confused lua?
    `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 #82 - April 05, 2015, 10:13 PM
    What, are you roping me back in?! One second, let me scroll up. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #83 - April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    Brilliant. David isn't the authority on this though. You know that right?

    I think you're too hung up on the 'philosophy' side. I don't care.

    I just hope scientists keep doing what they're doing.

    Oh...and the argument seems circular because scientist base their conlusions on the evidence. The scientific method means that you base your conclusions on the evidence. Therefore, scientists conClusions are theory laden because they're bAsed on the evidnece....AAAARGH!!!

    And trial and error...error and trial....
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #84 - April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 05, 2015, 10:11 PM
    Both lua and myself have answered already. Your bold assertions here aren't persuasive.

    But I've explained my assertions, so its wrong for you to claim that I'm making bald (i.e. unexplained) assertions.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #85 - April 05, 2015, 10:16 PM
    @Quod

    Well, I was really just talking about the scientific method not being a theory, so if you meant something else we might've been talking about two different things at one point. But in general I agree with your posts, anyway.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #86 - April 05, 2015, 10:17 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    Brilliant. David isn't the authority on this though. You know that right?

    Yes.
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    I think you're too hung up on the 'philosophy' side.

     Why do you believe that?
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    I just hope scientists keep doing what they're doing.

    Huh? You seem to think I think otherwise. weird.
    Quote from: Jedi on April 05, 2015, 10:14 PM
    Oh...and the argument seems circular because scientist base their conlusions on the evidence. The scientific method means that you base your conclusions on the evidence. Therefore, scientists conClusions are theory laden because they're bAsed on the evidnece....AAAARGH!!!

    The evidence itself needs interpretation. Do you agree?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #87 - April 06, 2015, 12:47 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 09:34 PM
    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?



    It depends on what theory you are talking. Each theory should be reevaluated by it's own merit not dismissed due to a change in SM. It also depends on the modification of SM. If the former SM included non-empirical data while the new one does not such a shift is going to have an effect on theories which use said data. However again each theory needs to be evaluated individually. Take a look at the theory of gravity along with it's history of modification. For centuries it did stand the test of time even after it's supernatural conclusion were discarded. It wasn't until General Relativist was the whole theory scrapped with correct data becoming part of GR which is the modern theory of gravity. An other example is the heliocentric model which has not been refuted even after 6 centuries of modifications to SM. So again modifications of SM is not a basis for dismissing anything offhand.

    You are leaving modifications of SM34 to SM35 vague. What type of change happens between the two? Until you provide an actual modification how can anyone take a position that X theory has been refuted or not? All one can say is exactly what I have put forward in my first paragraph.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #88 - April 06, 2015, 01:11 AM
    A very lovely poster sent me an email explaining why he agrees with Rami, so I'll be back later after I get a chance to read it and I'm not on my phone. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #89 - April 06, 2015, 01:38 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 10:06 PM
    neither do i. i said *the scientific method* is a philosophical theory, not a scientific theory. This is confused. The scientific method involves interpreting the meaning of empirical evidence, for example, whether or not it actually contradicts the predictions that a scientific theory makes. Also, the very predictions that the scientific theory makes are themselves interpretations. And all interpretations are theory-laden. That means that in order to determine that an interpretation is wrong, you need philosophy to do that.Philosophy is not dependent on science. Science is dependent on philosophy. It's one-way.



    It goes both ways honestly. Philosophy can not prove it's own premises as true without empirical data. Science can not create a hypothesis without philosophy. Science is seen as separate but is linked with philosophy just as empiricism is now linked with soundness.

    In regards to philosophy and science you are talking about the Philosophy of Science. Is this correct? If so I agree regarding interpretation of science, it's methods as is, methods in development, outdated methods, etc.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »