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

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 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
Lights on the way
by akay
November 19, 2024, 06:36 AM
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 32133 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #90 - April 06, 2015, 05:13 AM
    I'm not knowledgable on science and philosophy (so may sound a bit dense)but isn't everything based on a theory. A scientific method still requires human thought and planning to determine an outcome, so is therefore a theory, and the end result - the fact is still a theory as it requires our reasoning to draw conclusions. 
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #91 - April 06, 2015, 08:07 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 05, 2015, 10:17 PM
    The evidence itself needs interpretation. Do you agree?


    Of course it does and that's what scientists already do! But there conclusions are generally drawn from empirical data and not from a theory or rather a multiplicity of theories and they seek the best explanation, which is then subject to further testing or refutation. Science can achieve a sense of certainty which no philosophical theory ever could.

    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 #92 - April 06, 2015, 01:15 PM
    Quote from: suki on April 06, 2015, 05:13 AM
    A scientific method still requires human thought and planning to determine an outcome, so is therefore a theory,


    Nope. Even if that were true, which it isn't, that's not what a theory is, anyway. The scientific method is basically this, you can buy a colorful printout for a classroom: http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/tulip/anchor_chart_sci_method_lg.jpg

    Theories, both in the scientific sense and the layman's sense, can be constructed using the scientific method or just, you know, pondering things while you make a sandwich or take a shower. But the process of forming a theory isn't a theory. Rami was just saying so to try to loop it back around to it being a philosophy.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #93 - April 06, 2015, 01:27 PM
    Quote
    And how would you find out that the current scientific method is faulty?

    Quote from: lua on April 05, 2015, 09:46 PM
    Because we'd be getting weird and conflicting results when conducting scientific experiments.

    No that doesn't make any sense.

    I'll explain it another way.

    At one point, we had created and used the scientific method, let's call it SM34.

    Then comes Karl Popper who figures out that there is a mistake that lots of scientists are committing, and he figures out the solution to it. This solution refutes SM34 and creates a new scientific method SM35.

    SM35 is SM34 with one extra component, the Line of Demarcation.

    The Line of Demarcation explains that:

    A scientific theory is a theory which can, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence.

    This implies that any theory which cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, is non-scientific.

    So, anybody who claims to be doing science, and if his supposed "scientific" theory cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, then he's not doing science.

    Do you agree with Popper's Line of Demarcation?

    If you do, my next point is this: What did it take to refute SM34? Was it the case that SM34 made empirical predictions and we found that it's predictions contradicted empirical evidence? No that's not what happened. SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions and so we can't test it against empirical evidence. What we did was use philosophical (non-empirical) criticism to refute SM34.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #94 - April 06, 2015, 01:28 PM
    Quote from: bogart on April 06, 2015, 12:47 AM
    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.

    Ok I'll clarify. At one point, we had created and used the scientific method, let's call it SM34.

    Then comes Karl Popper who figures out that there is a mistake that lots of scientists are committing, and he figures out the solution to it. This solution refutes SM34 and creates a new scientific method SM35.

    SM35 is SM34 with one extra component, the Line of Demarcation.

    The Line of Demarcation explains that:

    A scientific theory is a theory which can, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence.

    This implies that any theory which cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, is non-scientific.

    So, anybody who claims to be doing science, and if his supposed "scientific" theory cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, then he's not doing science.

    Do you agree with Popper's Line of Demarcation?

    If you do, my next point is this: What did it take to refute SM34? Was it the case that SM34 made empirical predictions and we found that it's predictions contradicted empirical evidence? No that's not what happened. SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions and so we can't test it against empirical evidence. What we did was use philosophical criticism to refute SM34.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #95 - April 06, 2015, 01:31 PM
    Quote from: bogart on April 06, 2015, 01:38 AM
    It goes both ways honestly. Philosophy can not prove it's own premises as true without empirical data.

    No. Here's an example.

    TheoryA: "The truth is, there is no truth."

    Is it possible to refute TheoryA by empirical evidence?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #96 - April 06, 2015, 01:32 PM
    Quote from: suki on April 06, 2015, 05:13 AM
    I'm not knowledgable on science and philosophy (so may sound a bit dense)but isn't everything based on a theory. A scientific method still requires human thought and planning to determine an outcome, so is therefore a theory, and the end result - the fact is still a theory as it requires our reasoning to draw conclusions. 

    That wasn't dense at all. I think you have it right.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #97 - April 06, 2015, 01:34 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on April 06, 2015, 08:07 AM
    Of course [evidence] does [need interpretation] and that's what scientists already do!

    Right, did you think I thought otherwise? If so, why?

    Note that the interpretation is theory-laden. Which means it's philosophy. If you have the wrong theory about how to interpret [some piece of evidence], then you've interpreted wrong. And the only way to correct the wrong [interpretive/philosophical] theory, is with philosophical (non-empirical) criticism.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #98 - April 06, 2015, 01:35 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 01:15 PM
    Theories, both in the scientific sense and the layman's sense, can be constructed using the scientific method or just, you know, pondering things while you make a sandwich or take a shower. But the process of forming a theory isn't a theory. Rami was just saying so to try to loop it back around to it being a philosophy.

    Iua, I re-explained what I said without using the word "theory", so I don't understand why you're still stuck on the word "theory".
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #99 - April 06, 2015, 01:37 PM
    Quote
    Quote from: lua on Yesterday at 04:46 PM
    Because we'd be getting weird and conflicting results when conducting scientific experiments.

    No that doesn't make any sense.


    This is why I say you're making this way crazier than it has to be. You can explain all you want, but in the end, this is actually the case. If, at my lab, we stopped everything for the year and tried a new "method" every week, we'd be getting all sorts of crazy, garbage results. When we follow the logical way of conducting experiments that we just so happen to have called "the scientific method," we can actually conduct experiments correctly and get the correct result.

    Not a single thing that you're doing mental gymnastics to explain changes that. This is why I say you're trying to compare apples and pickup trucks. Just because the formation of the scientific method was so tied up in philosophy doesn't mean that it still has a place there. I was genuinely asking you for an explanation as to how it might, but everything you've said about the scientific method since has been, to me, a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about.

    But it's the first thing in the morning, Rami. I'll read that email that the other poster sent me later on today and give it a good think and see if he explains your position better than you have, and I'll get back to you on it.  yes
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #100 - April 06, 2015, 01:38 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:35 PM
    Iua, I re-explained what I said without using the word "theory", so I don't understand why you're still stuck on the word "theory".


    Cheesy I wasn't talking to you, Rami. Suki brought the word theory back into play (and, by the way, you just agreed with her, so what are you even complaining about?) and I replied to her.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #101 - April 06, 2015, 01:39 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:35 PM
    This is why I say you're making this way crazier than it has to be. You can explain all you want, but in the end, this is actually the case.

    Whether or not it's actually the case is what we're arguing over. So just telling me that I'm wrong doesn't help resolve the disagreement we have.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #102 - April 06, 2015, 01:39 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 01:38 PM
    Cheesy I wasn't talking to you, Rami. Suki brought the word theory back into play (and, by the way, you just agreed with her, so what are you even complaining about?) and I replied to her.

    Yes and if you didn't have a problem with the word "theory" then why even mention in it reply to her? I don't get it.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #103 - April 06, 2015, 01:41 PM
    ...What? Is there a language barrier here or something? I mean that honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick.

    Of course I have a problem with the word theory applied to what is not a theory. Just because you eased off of that definition doesn't mean that, if someone else jumps in and tries arguing it's a theory again, I'll magically have changed my position?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #104 - April 06, 2015, 01:43 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 01:38 PM
    ...What? Is there a language barrier here or something? I mean that honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick.

    Of course I have a problem with the word theory applied to what is not a theory. Just because you eased off of that definition doesn't mean that, if someone else jumps in and tries arguing it's a theory again, I'll magically have changed my position?

    gp, you're right.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #105 - April 06, 2015, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 01:37 PM
    Not a single thing that you're doing mental gymnastics to explain changes that. This is why I say you're trying to compare apples and pickup trucks. Just because the formation of the scientific method was so tied up in philosophy doesn't mean that it still has a place there. I was genuinely asking you for an explanation as to how it might, but everything you've said about the scientific method since has been, to me, a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about.

    You said all that in reply to my post and you ignored all the content of my post. Why? If you think the content of my post was wrong, you can explain how it's wrong. But ignoring it and then declaring that I haven't clearly demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about doesn't make sense.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #106 - April 06, 2015, 01:55 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:39 PM
    Whether or not it's actually the case is what we're arguing over. So just telling me that I'm wrong doesn't help resolve the disagreement we have.


    It's one of the more highly ridiculous things I've heard on this site if you're asking me to prove that the scientific method helps us produce successful experiments and that not using the scientific method produces error. Is that what you're asking me to do?

    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:46 PM
    You said all that in reply to my post and you ignored all the content of my post. Why? If you think the content of my post was wrong, you can explain how it's wrong. But ignoring it and then declaring that I haven't clearly demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about doesn't make sense.


    Because, much like I stop reading immediately and save myself some time when someone who claims to have knowledge about LGBT issues opens by saying, "Being gay is a decision you make," what you just said in the very beginning of that post indicates to me that you really do not know what you're talking about, and it makes me a bit hesitant to sit at your feet for the rest of it. Grin

    But since you insist that, again, I address particularly why I'm not going along with the rest of your post, I'll say it again: I think you're comparing two totally different things, so at the very entrance gate, I reject your premise.

    You keep saying "refuting" the earlier scientific method, and you're using this loaded language to goad me into basically agreeing that the scientific method today is a theory that can be proven or refuted. It's not. It's a tool. It's a checklist. It's a process. Just like there were earlier forms of the calculator that produced less accurate results. We don't say "the earlier calculators were refuted." The whole thing got fine-tuned and improved until it started producing consistent results.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #107 - April 06, 2015, 01:57 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 01:41 PM
    It's one of the more highly ridiculous things I've heard on this site if you're asking me to prove that the scientific method helps us produce successful experiments and that not using the scientific method produces error. Is that what you're asking me to do?

    Huh? No I didn't say anything remotely close to that.

    So you're declaring what I'm saying ridiculous when you don't even know what I'm saying.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #108 - April 06, 2015, 02:00 PM
    Quote
    It's one of the more highly ridiculous things I've heard on this site if you're asking me to prove that the scientific method helps us produce successful experiments and that not using the scientific method produces error. Is that what you're asking me to do?


    Actually, that was a little rude of me. I don't mean it like it necessarily should be totally obvious why this is the case. But I get the feeling like I'm talking to someone who basically knows this already, and you're just defying me to walk you through it. Is this really what you're asking me to do?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #109 - April 06, 2015, 02:01 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:57 PM
    Huh? No I didn't say anything remotely close to that.

    So you're declaring what I'm saying ridiculous when you don't even know what I'm saying.


    Yeah, it wasn't fair language. But the reason I asked was because I had said that, if the scientific method was faulty, we'd be getting conflicting and inaccurate results, and you said that doesn't make sense. So help me out here and spare me guessing further: what part doesn't make sense?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #110 - April 06, 2015, 02:02 PM
    Quote from: lua
    You keep saying "refuting" the earlier scientific method, and you're using this loaded language to goad me into basically agreeing that the scientific method today is a theory that can be proven or refuted. It's not. It's a tool. It's a checklist. It's a process. Just like there were earlier forms of the calculator that produced less accurate results. We don't say "the earlier calculators were refuted." The whole thing got fine-tuned and improved until it started producing consistent results.

    So your problem with my explanation is that I'm using the word "refuted" in reference to the scientific method? Fine, I'll change it to something else. Let's see if you have a problem with this one:

    At one point, we had created and used the scientific method, let's call it SM34.

    Then comes Karl Popper who figures out that there is a mistake that lots of scientists are committing, and he figures out the solution to it. This solution shows SM34 to be wrong and creates a new scientific method SM35.

    SM35 is SM34 with one extra component, the Line of Demarcation.

    The Line of Demarcation explains that:

    A scientific theory is a theory which can, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence.

    This implies that any theory which cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, is non-scientific.

    So, anybody who claims to be doing science, and if his supposed "scientific" theory cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, then he's not doing science.

    Do you agree with Popper's Line of Demarcation?

    If you do, my next point is this: What did it take to show that SM34 is wrong? Was it the case that SM34 made empirical predictions and we found that it's predictions contradicted empirical evidence? No that's not what happened. SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions and so we can't test it against empirical evidence. What we did was use philosophical criticism to show that SM34 is wrong.


    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 02:01 PM
    Yeah, it wasn't fair language. But the reason I asked was because I had said that, if the scientific method was faulty, we'd be getting conflicting and inaccurate results, and you said that doesn't make sense. So help me out here and spare me guessing further: what part doesn't make sense?

    Ok see my explanation above (where I no longer use the word "refute" in reference to the scientific method).
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #111 - April 06, 2015, 02:09 PM
    You...removed the loaded language to give away that you were talking about the scientific method as a theory, but you kept in the part where you're asking me if I agree with "The Line of Demarcation" which, as you've defined it, specifically applies to theories?

    I do agree with what you've given as the definition of "The Line of Demarcation," that's plainly true. But I do not agree with your application of it to the issue at hand. I still don't agree that the scientific method is a theory. So I'm not going to examine it using "The Line of Demarcation" as you've defined it.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #112 - April 06, 2015, 02:16 PM
    Real life is calling, Rami. Grin

    Like I said, I'll look at the other guy's email later and maybe the way he explains it will change whether or not I agree with your position, because as you're explaining it, I absolutely cannot agree with you. He might have done it in a way that makes more sense to me, so we'll see later, and I'll get back to you. Deal?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #113 - April 06, 2015, 02:30 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 02:09 PM
    You...removed the loaded language to give away that you were talking about the scientific method as a theory, but you kept in the part where you're asking me if I agree with "The Line of Demarcation" which, as you've defined it, specifically applies to theories?

    I do agree with what you've given as the definition of "The Line of Demarcation," that's plainly true. But I do not agree with your application of it to the issue at hand. I still don't agree that the scientific method is a theory. So I'm not going to examine it using "The Line of Demarcation" as you've defined it.

    I don't follow what you're saying.

    Do you agree that SM34 has a flaw which SM35 does not have? (SM34 does not account for the Line of Demarcation while SM35 does.)

    And do you agree that the flaw in SM34 was not found by testing SM34's predictions against physical reality? (this question may be misleading because SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions.)
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #114 - April 06, 2015, 06:39 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:32 PM
    That wasn't dense at all. I think you have it right.


    Oh right, thnx, was just looking at the bigger picture really..

  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #115 - April 06, 2015, 07:32 PM
    False alarm, the person who emailed me wasn't agreeing with you after all, my apologies all around. So I guess I'm back to square one with you, Rami.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 02:30 PM
    I don't follow what you're saying.

    Do you agree that SM34 has a flaw which SM35 does not have? (SM34 does not account for the Line of Demarcation while SM35 does.)

    And do you agree that the flaw in SM34 was not found by testing SM34's predictions against physical reality? (this question may be misleading because SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions.)


    Again, I'm not going to run "SM-whatever" through what you've presented to me as the "Line of Demarcation," because the definition you gave to me of the Line of Demarcation absolutely makes sense and is something we talk about a lot in beginner's science courses, like why it's not scientific to claim that there's harmful radiation coming from yonder factory but it's a special kind of radiation that cannot be measured or detected and the harm is not specific.

    My problem is that, again, this is applicable, as you've described it, to theories or claims, and what I'm talking about when I say the scientific method is a method and a tool. It's a calculator. It's a formula. It's a Gateway manual. It's something I use and it works, and it's been refined from a point of not working so well to the point of working reliably when nothing else does.

    Your bottom line is that you're trying to claim that the scientific method is a philosophy, and you're going this really long way around and trying to cram a square peg into the triangle hole. I mean exactly what I say. The Line of Demarcation makes sense to me, if it is precisely what you described. But I do not agree with how you're trying to proceed with it, and so I can't answer your loaded questions. If you want to try a different approach, I'm all for it, but you can't just keep trying to make me agree that it's a theory or subject to the treatment of theories by just slightly modifying your language every post.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #116 - April 06, 2015, 08:24 PM
    Quote from: lua
    My problem is that, again, this is applicable, as you've described it, to theories or claims, and what I'm talking about when I say the scientific method is a method and a tool. It's a calculator. It's a formula. It's a Gateway manual. It's something I use and it works, and it's been refined from a point of not working so well to the point of working reliably when nothing else does.

    Ok here's a different way to explain this. Consider my discussion with Jedi.

    Jedi: Oh...and the argument seems circular because scientist base their conclusions 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!!!

    Rami: The evidence itself needs interpretation. Do you agree?

    Jedi: Of course it does and that's what scientists already do! But there conclusions are generally drawn from empirical data and not from a theory or rather a multiplicity of theories and they seek the best explanation, which is then subject to further testing or refutation. Science can achieve a sense of certainty which no philosophical theory ever could.

    Rami: Right, did you think I thought otherwise? If so, why? Note that the interpretation is theory-laden. Which means it's philosophy. If you have the wrong theory about how to interpret [some piece of evidence], then you've interpreted wrong. And the only way to correct the wrong [interpretive/philosophical] theory, is with philosophical (non-empirical) criticism.

    Do you see my point?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #117 - April 06, 2015, 08:27 PM
    Iua, here's another try:

    Question: How do you judge whether the scientific method is useful?

    You might answer: Because it works!

    And the thing is that "because it works!" is a philosophical position not a scientific one. Do you agree?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #118 - April 06, 2015, 08:30 PM
    Iua, here's another try:

    Question: How did mathematics find its way into the scientific method?

    Mathematics by its nature, can't be empirically tested. How can one judge whether the usage of mathematics in science is useful?

    Again this requires a philosophical theory explaining why mathematics should be used as part of the scientific method.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #119 - April 06, 2015, 08:32 PM
    I do see your point, yes, but I don't agree with you.

    I think something you're kind of overlooking here is that you can use the scientific method perfectly, absolutely perfectly, and still get your failed experiments. You still get the wrong answer. And the right answer comes about when you've discovered it and tested it using the same theory but a different approach, and what you compare or analyze is the data from whatever you've done.

    The order to interpret your data is not an interpretation. The scientific method is not an interpretation. It is not evidence, either. It's a method.
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »