Philosophy 101

Of course we can.We might think something is eating the sun or moon, but we can witness it nonetheless. So how can religion describe eclipses without "the observational methodologies so central to the scientific method"?Do you consider the Old Testament depictions of parted seas, talking burning bushes and a stationary sun to be exceptionally well done descriptions of nature?

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Obervation of what Jon? What is it we are observing?

I see Straggler as a bully.Take, for example, Message 134, where he demands an answer to: However, I actually explained what was the point of that example, back in Message 77 where I introduced the example. That post was made several days ago. If Straggler did not understand my reason for introducing the example, he has had plenty of time to ask about that. Apparently, he is not actually interested in why I used that example. Rather, he seems to see it as a heavy blunt instrument that he can wield as a bully's bludgeon.In that same post, he also demands an answer to:

1. It's a stupid question. The alternative is that all theories (including voodoo, astrology, or tossing a coin) would make equally good predictions.
2. it is unclear what that question has to do with the topic of this thread;
3. it is apparently being used to attack a statement that I made in a different thread, but it has never been explained why the question has any relation to what what it claims to be attacking.

Straggler has repeated demanded an answer to that stupid question. Again, it appears that he is using it as a bully's bludgeon.I enjoy thoughtful discussion. I has no problem with people disagreeing with my views as part of a thoughtful discussion. But I have no interest in participating in a brawl with a net bully.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

As has been said to you by others previously - Debaters talk about their positions. Game-players talk about the debate. If you cannot justify the silly things you say maybe you just shouldn't say them? Actually it is a rather key question in the philosophy of science. But if you want an example of stupid look no further than your assertion that "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves". This is the truly stupid part of your whole position on this issue. Exactly. But they don't make equally accurate or reliable predictions do they? Why is that? Because scientific theories are superior descriptions and models of nature perhaps? Oh but of course scientific theories don't say anything about nature do they? So what is your alternative?Until your little pet philosophy of science can answer that question it remains dead in the water. And no amount of blathering about me personally or evasion by means of pompously declaring how much you enjoy thoughtful discussion is going to change that.So - Why do you think some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the bevaviour of nature than others?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Poor likkle n wubbya r.
He thinks that meanie Stwaggler gone too far
He says I’m being bullied — Everyone says Ahhhhh
But if you have a valid position be prepared to spar
If you don't - It will be detected by bullshit radar
Thoughtful discussion requires first that you think
Brazen assertions will always eventually sink
But you’d rather talk about people than engage in debate
Unable to clarify or support the argument you advo-cate
Here is the thing you nut nibbling rodent.
I’ve never yet heard you say anything cogent
Unable to answer questions that will not be dropped
Offended by a line of inquiry not so easily stopped
You don’t like it. I don’t care.
Read your latest assertions. It was too much to bear.
Witless vacuities make me pull out my hair
Your ineptitude makes me stand and stare
Disagreement is fine. Contention expected.
Even prepared to deal with strawmen as they get erected.
I don’t expect my sensitive soul to be protected
But —yes — the flaws in your position will be resurrected
Where you are wrong - you will be corrected.
Ambiguous evasiveness will be inspected
Error prone drivel will be rejected.
Inane replies ruthlessly dissected
To this end my questions are directed
You talk about latitude and longditude
As if scientific theories are similarly construed.
But with different properties they are imbued
Science can predict nature. This is demonstrably true.
But you deny it. How stupid of you.
Co-ordinate system is just an agreed human convention
Entirely arbitrary pragmatic invention
But is the same true of scientific theories?
If so - How do they so successfully answer our queries?
Allow us to predict nature’s behaviour
This question alone is why your theory needs a saviour
Make predictions that are accurate and reliable
How we determine our models of nature as viable
To comprehend and manipulate reality
Requires rationalisation on the basis of evidentiality
Resulted in the ascendance of human kind
Pinnacle achievement of the human mind
Nobody claiming that theories are ever proved
Instead suggesting verisi-mili-tude
But to the nut-nibbler this isn’t clear
Doesn’t fit the pet theory he holds so dear
He thinks method is both the end and means
His thinking so circular that it’s obscene
Observation for observations sake
But predictions about nature that cannot make
Which is why his position remains so flawed
Unable to be helped, saved or restored
Because still there remains the question
The one he doesn’t want me to mention
It will be asked without suspension
Regardless of invoking tension Why do you think some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A quote from Bertrand Russell regarding the point of philosophy: It seemed appropriate to post that here,.

Allow me to get in the middle of your now dead conversation on philosophy. In a sense, it is true that scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. To understand this view, you have to understand how reality works. Reality isn't bounded by some magical parameters. Reality is just that, reality. Nature, or reality, doesn't behave. It just acts. What science does is try to find patterns and try to make predictions.The most common mistake people often make when discussing about the laws of physics is that they literally think nature is bounded by the laws of physics. This is why it is a dead give away that you're dealing with an amateur when the person says something like "but it violates the laws of physics" or "this doesn't conform with the 2nd law of thermodynamics". Sound familiar?Try to think of nature as a beast that does its own thing, and science is man's way of trying to understand the beast and attempts to predict the beast's behavior. As to how the beast works, we may never know. Nobody think such thing unless you're a creationist. A couple weeks ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson went on Bill Maher's show. Facing him was a republican senator who was also a strong denier of global warming, or climate change if you want to be politically correct. Tyson said that what's beautiful about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.That said, my direct answer to your question is that science is the only framework of human endeavor that deals directly with reality. No god or allah or buddha bullshit. No trying to predict what the horny old man in the sky wants you to do. Science looks at reality, tries to find patterns, and make predictions. And no where in science is there a stamp that this part or that part cannot be modified... unlike religion (ahem). Science is completely willing to throw away everyrything if tomorrow we find out that everything has been wrong all along.You don't need some philosophical mumble jumble to come up with that. It is purely common sense. If you want to make accurate predictions about reality, it is best to deal with reality, not prayers or faith BS.You want proof of what I said? Just look at how much progress faith healing has made in the last, I don't know... forever? Now, look at how much progress modern medicine has made in the last couple decades?The point is we don't need some philosophical mumble jumble to tell us in obscure language that science is the best way to deal with reality. Science can defend itself on its own two feet. The only reason scientists don't tell philosophers out right to go fuck off is out of politeness.In my lab, we're about to do some new testings of a new material that is a potential replacement for steel in the near future in some areas of construction. Who cares what philosophers have to say in their philosophical mumble jumble? We'll have the numbers to show for the results of our research and, hopefully, more fundings. We don't need some obscure post-modern bullshit to put on our published results. Again, we got the raw data to show for it. That's dealing with reality. Religionists can pray all they want.

Predictions about how nature behaves and acts (it does both in the English language). So, in what sense is it true that scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves? In a non-sense? More non-sense?

If scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves then how are scientific theories able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature?

SEMANTIC ALERT!!! 2 DIFFERENT USAGES OF THE WORD "say"!!!!Taz is using the "say" that is also implying an active role in the process as if it could limit what nature does. Straggler is only using it in the observational sense.Compare two courtroom questions of a witness:"Did you have any say in the matter of his finances?"versus"What would you say about the matter of his finances?"

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

If Taz is confused as to what is being discussed maybe he should read the posts he is replying to and try and answer the questions posed in them......Just a radical suggestion.

Of course if you could demonstrate that scientific theories are capable of making predictions about the behavior of nature, then you might have an argument in incessantly asking that worn-out question.Until then, you're just being, as nwr would say, a bully.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

First of all, you guys really need to be patient with me. It is now 11pm and I just got back home from work. Been in the lab since early in the morning. You see, some of us actually do real scientific work rather than delve into philosophical mumble jumble. Because nature is not bounded by scientific theories. You could almost say we have faith that nature won't change its behavior on a whim. Again, this is probably the most common mistakes amateurs make when trying to describe the relationship between science and nature. Nature does its own thing no matter what we have to say about it.And again, this is just one perspective that I'm throwing out there. It's like the difference between the glass is half full or half empty. Take it for what it's worth.

Who remotely suggested that it is?If scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves then how are scientific theories able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature? We have inductively, and thus tentatively, reasoned this based on past experience. "Faith" as such doesn't really come into it. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that your scientific work would be enhanced by considering the nature of what exactly it is you are doing and the reasoning behind this in more depth?On what basis do scientists derive their methods? Why are these methods superior to other methods? What is tentativity and why is it necessary in science? What is evidence and what forms can it take? How do we judge what is science and what is not? What is it that science is actually seeking to do? And is that aim meaningful or logically justifiable? (and how much does it matter if it isn't?). These are philosophical questions. You may not think that they matter. Maybe in an utterly practical 'putting men on the moon' sort of way they don't matter. But does that make them worthless questions? How do you decide what is real and what isn't?
How do you decide what is "known" and what isn't?Bearing in mind that many on this very board claim to "know" things to be "real" on the basis of "evidence" that you and I very probably agree is utter nonsense. Because they define "real" and "know" and "evidence" differently to the scientific basis that you and I would probably agree upon.

How do you think scientific discoveries are made? Eclipses Jon. Our scientific theories regarding gravity etc. allow us to accurately and reliably predict eclipses. But if that isn't enough for you here are a few examples of discoveries made as a result of scientific predictions: General Relativity

quote:

---

That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

---

Or we could consider the Standard Model

quote:

---

The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision. To give an idea of the success of the SM, the following table compares the measured masses of the W and Z bosons with the masses predicted by the SM:

---

quote:

---

Currently, there is one elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed: the Higgs boson. A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is that the high energies of which it is capable are expected to make the Higgs observable.

---

That is a lot of expense to go to in order to achieve something you are arguing is pointless.Or Anti-matter

quote:

---

In 1928 Dirac took an important step towards bringing quantum physics into conformity with Einstein's special theory of relativity by devising an equation (now called the Dirac equation) that could describe the behaviour of electrons at any speed up to the speed of light. This equation provided a natural explanation of one of the electron's intrinsic properties - its spin.

​

Taking the mathematical form of his equation seriously, and searching for a way of interpreting it, Dirac was led, in 1931, to propose that there should exist a class of 'anti-electrons,' particles with the same mass and spin as the electron but with the opposite electrical charge. By correctly predicting the existence of these antiparticles, now called positrons, Dirac became recognized as the 'discoverer' of antimatter - one of the most important discoveries of the century.

​

Then ... in 1932, a professor at California Tech - Carl Anderson - proved Dirac's prediction about antimatter was accurate. While studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber, Anderson saw a track left by "something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron."

---

Then we have one for evolution. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---