|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: To make you understand that one size does not fit all. Which is exactly my point Xongsmith This is exactly why pointing out that a particular proposition is untestable/unfalsifiable is not the argument clinching point that some seem to think it is. This is exactly why talk of Ben Franklin in a field without a means to test for electricity yadd yadda yadda isn’t in itself an argument. If someone wants to invoke the untestability/unfalsifiability of their particular pet belief as a reason to demand that everyone else be rationally agnostic towards it they need to explain why their particular belief is different to all of the untestable/unfalsifiable propositions to which we can and do rationally take an atheistic stance. Don’t they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: I realize this is Stagglers point, that anyone at anytime can just make something up. But each claim must be examined individually and not just dismissed outright imo. But that is my point. Agnosticism cannot be demanded just because something is unfalsifiable. That is the lesson that needs to learnt here. It is at least as much about the evidence supporting a given proposition. Or, in many cases, the lack of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But (as we all keep relentlessly repeating) the conclusion is not "there are no gods".
The conclusion, based on the positive evidence, is that gods are figments of human imagination, no more likely to be real entities than any other such human invention. Get it right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But (as we all keep relentlessly repeating) the conclusion is not "there are no gods". The conclusion, based on the positive evidence, is that gods are figments of human imagination, no more likely to be real entities than any other such human invention. Get it right. That's a seperate issue, you repeating it is your own problem. *IF*, I repeat, If the proposition was as such, would you reject it if there was no evidence for it? Its an application of the same logic to a different proposition.
Agnosticism cannot be demanded just because something is unfalsifiable. That is the lesson that needs to learnt here. It is at least as much about the evidence supporting a given proposition. Or, in many cases, the lack of it. But science rules things out by falsifying them, not because of a lack of evidence for them... those things it just ignores. Its a non-position like agnosticism is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: If you're theory more closely matches reality, then it will work better, but working better doesn't necessarily mean that your threory more closely matches reality. That appears contradictory. If theory A produces more reliable and accurate predictions than theory B then theory A more closely matches reality than theory B. Right? Frankly this seems inarguable. But you seem to be disputing it.
CS writes: They don't even address them at all and that's gotta be one of the stupidest reason to. Where we conclude that something (e.g. evolution) is highly likely to be correct we necessarily eliminate mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. omphalistic special creation) as very unlikely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: *IF*, I repeat, If the proposition was as such, would you reject it if there was no evidence for it? Any proposition for which there is no evidence of any sort whatsoever (which obviously raises the question of what is evidence and what is not - but that is a separate issue) is necessarily the product of imaginative minds.
CS writes: But science rules things out by falsifying them.. Who says so?
CS writes: .....not because of a lack of evidence for them... those things it just ignores. Its a non-position like agnosticism is. You cannot conclude one thing without eliminating other mutually exclusive things. NO matter how unfalsifiable they may be. This is a simple fact of logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
CS writes:
Ah - I see. In Message 241:, Straggler wrote:RAZD was referring to a statement made by another poster 70 posts previous. Perhaps if he had mentioned that I could have asked him what that has to do with whether untestability alone is a barrier to taking an atheistic stance towards a given proposition. As to "there are no gods": there is no way to prove something doesn't exist.But it is possible to prove that something does exist. And the longer that search for evidence remains unsuccessful: the more atheistic (6) your stance can be. When evidence is found that conflicts with the existence of something: the more atheistic (6) your stance can be. It is simply inductive reasoning. The more the evidence points you in a direction: the more likely that it is the correct direction. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But science rules things out by falsifying them, not because of a lack of evidence for them... those things it just ignores. No, not really. A scientist might perfectly well write: "Of all extant animals, only birds, bats, and insects can fly." This is not because pigs with wings have been falsified (one can only falsify a universal and not a particular proposition) but because there is no evidence for them --- that is, because the proposition that pigs don't have wings has not been falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
CS writes:
That appears contradictory. If you're theory more closely matches reality, then it will work better, but working better doesn't necessarily mean that your threory more closely matches reality. If A then B does not imply that If B then A...
If theory A produces more reliable and accurate predictions than theory B then theory A more closely matches reality than theory B. Right? Frankly this seems inarguable. But you seem to be disputing it. If I end up with better predictions of the position of a falling body by using Newtonian Mechanics than I do by using General Relativity, that wouldn't mean that Newtonian Mechanics more closely matches reality.
Where we conclude that something (e.g. evolution) is highly likely to be correct we necessarily eliminate mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. omphalistic special creation) as very unlikely. Sure, when I conclude something, there's all kinds of different mutually exclusive proposition you could come up with that would necessarily be eliminated, but that's neither here nor there.
Any proposition for which there is no evidence of any sort whatsoever (which obviously raises the question of what is evidence and what is not - but that is a separate issue) is necessarily the product of imaginative minds. And thus highly unlikely, given the proposition: "there are no gods", if there's a lack of evidence for that then it should be rejected as highly unlikely, ergo... there *are* gods wait, you sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: If I end up with better predictions of the position of a falling body by using Newtonian Mechanics than I do by using General Relativity, that wouldn't mean that Newtonian Mechanics more closely matches reality. But if you are capable of competent calculations you won't end up with better predictions. Newtonian mechanics provides easier calculations but less accurate and less reliable ones. Usually to a degree that doesn't make the extra complication worthwhile. So which is the theory that most closely matches reality?
CS writes: Sure, when I conclude something, there's all kinds of different mutually exclusive proposition you could come up with that would necessarily be eliminated, but that's neither here nor there. Of course it is. It is entirely here and there.
CS writes: And thus highly unlikely, given the proposition: "there are no gods", That isn't really a proposition unless some notion of "gods" has already been proposed is it?
CS writes: ...if there's a lack of evidence for that then it should be rejected as highly unlikely, ergo... But that isn't what I said. What I said is that any proposition devoid of supporting evidence is necessarily conceived from the minds of imaginative beings. How can it be otherwise? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggler writes:
X writes: To make you understand that one size does not fit all. Which is exactly my point Xongsmith WTF!!?? So now you say your question is in fact bullshit. Okay - I can dig it.
This is exactly why pointing out that a particular proposition is untestable/unfalsifiable is not the argument clinching point that some seem to think it is. This is exactly why talk of Ben Franklin in a field without a means to test for electricity yadd yadda yadda isn’t in itself an argument. Whoa - I think ZD's story went completely over your head. It was only to point out that if you don't have the means to test what you are investigating, then you don't have the ability to make a conclusion about what you are investigating. Pretty simple really.
If someone wants to invoke the untestability/unfalsifiability of their particular pet belief as a reason to demand that everyone else be rationally agnostic towards it they need to explain why their particular belief is different to all of the untestable/unfalsifiable propositions to which we can and do rationally take an atheistic stance. Don’t they? Here you are assuming that ZD is making this error. Perhaps, once again for the benefit of the class, you can demonstrate this? No bare links - show quote boxes.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If I end up with better predictions of the position of a falling body by using Newtonian Mechanics than I do by using General Relativity, that wouldn't mean that Newtonian Mechanics more closely matches reality. Could you expand on this point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggler writes:
Agnosticism cannot be demanded just because something is unfalsifiable. DUH. BTW my friend, "unfalsifiable" DOES NOT EQUAL "untestable", so nice sneak attack again by someone who is increasingly being sly & dishonest or just confused about the point they are trying to make.
Agnosticism cannot be demanded just because something is untestable. I am still saying DUH. Nothing can be demanded. That also includes your several 6+ atheistic stances. There are other aspects that need to be considered for each issue.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggler writes:
But if you are capable of competent calculations you won't end up with better predictions. Newtonian mechanics provides easier calculations but less accurate and less reliable ones. Usually to a degree that doesn't make the extra complication worthwhile. Depends on how you define "better"...is "more accurate" or quicker and a simple app on my iPod "better". And if you do get the GPS app on your iPod that does use GR, then that still may not change how you would calculate your approach to Ganymede with the tie fighters on your ass.
So which is the theory that most closely matches reality? CS kinda alluded to GR being more closely matching reality, didn't he?- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No, Straggler isn't saying that. Go back and read my Message 326
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024