How to tell if you believe in bullshit. - Maddox - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728446]For one, there's the idea of basic beliefs. Like I said, the claim that the scientific method is the only way to know truth is fundamentally self-contradictory because you can't prove the claim with the scientific method.[/QUOTE] How are we defining truth? Is it how the world works? Which can be boiled down and represented by mathematical equations? If we're defining truth as something that coincides and reflects reality, I.E the state of things, then the scientific method is the best way of doing this. Observation and testing of hypothesis provide the most reliable way of doing this, and it obviously "works". [editline]Hi Dai[/editline] Broke my automerge.

-snip-

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728494]Come on now, the problem of self-contradiction has been known far longer than that! It's a basic tenet of logic.[/QUOTE] The scientific method doesn't claim to find the truth, it is a tool to see what is NOT truth. That's the basic principle and philosophy of scientific research. Or as Feynman said it, you have to be ready to take a days worth of theoretical work and throw it into the trash.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728517]The scientific method doesn't claim to find the truth, it is a tool to see what is NOT truth. That's the basic principle and philosophy of scientific research. Or as Feynman said it, you have to be ready to take a days worth of theoretical work and throw it into the trash.[/QUOTE] I mean, you're just wrong about that. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to any question. If the scientific method only showed us what is wrong, then it would never get us closer to showing what is right.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728399]Sorry Maddox, but the scientific method isn't the only way to know truth. (hint, you can't prove that the scientific method works without using some other method of finding truth)[/QUOTE] What's your method? Oh wait you have replied to other people and not given an explanation and you are already a few replies in. So yeah, what's your method?

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728522]I mean, you're just wrong about that. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to any question. If the scientific method only showed us what is wrong, then it would never get us closer to showing what is right.[/QUOTE] You can rule out infinite numbers of wrong answers. How big is 2? 2 not smaller or equal to 1 and not bigger or equal to 3. There, Ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728531]You can rule out infinite numbers of wrong answers. How big is 2? 2 not smaller or equak to 1 and not bigger or equal to 3. There, Ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately reality and science as a whole isn't [I]that[/I] simple, science cannot prove a negative. We do conveniently have burden of proof though, that combined with Occam's razor give us a very good starting point.

Take the idea of justice. So, I observe that every society and every person ever has a notion of justice. Everyone agrees that there is such a thing as a correct and incorrect response to actions (even if they don't agree what the response might be). So I hypothesize that justice exists. The problem, of course, is that there is no experient to run to prove that justice exists. It isn't that I can't find evidence, but that no possible scientific experiment exists to prove or disprove my hypothesis. Does this mean that justice doesn't exist? Wait, not so fast. Let's say I replace justice with the outside world. So, I observe the outside world. I hypothesize that the outside world really exists. Ooops... there's no scientific experiment I can run to prove that the outside world exists. Does that mean the outside world doesn't exist? Of course not! This is the idea of basic beliefs. Every person can rationally hold to certain basic truths based purely on their own experience until a defeater is supplied that shows their belief to be false. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ricool06;49728529]What's your method? Oh wait you have replied to other people and not given an explanation and you are already a few replies in. So yeah, what's your method?[/QUOTE] I'm not making a claim to a method (even though I've already mentioned basic beliefs). I'm not required to provide an alternative to show that their claim is false. Also note that I'm not saying the scientific method is always wrong or useless. I think it's amazing useful in specific circumstances.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;49728551]Unfortunately reality and science as a whole isn't [I]that[/I] simple, science cannot prove a negative. We do conveniently have burden of proof though, that combined with Occam's razor give us a very good starting point.[/QUOTE] That's why you disprove

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728531]You can rule out infinite numbers of wrong answers. How big is 2? 2 not smaller or equak to 1 and not bigger or equal to 3. There, Ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers.[/QUOTE] The size of two is as big as a boat. There, I provided another wrong answer. Illogical answers are still wrong. Also, you've provided a non-scientific question anyway. It's definitional. The scientific method can't prove how big 2 is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728552]I'm not making a claim to a method (even though I've already mentioned basic beliefs). I'm not required to provide an alternative to show that their claim is false. Also note that I'm not saying the scientific method is always wrong or useless. I think it's amazing useful in specific circumstances.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Like I said, the claim that the scientific method is the only way to know truth is fundamentally self-contradictory because you can't prove the claim with the scientific method.[/QUOTE] Okay so now I know you are offering no rational or useful argument. Thank you for providing me with this information at the start of the discussion.

He should have brought up the retarded flat earth theory in this video.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728552]So, I observe the outside world. I hypothesize that the outside world really exists. Ooops... there's no scientific experiment I can run to prove that the outside world exists. Does that mean the outside world doesn't exist? Of course not![/QUOTE] Observing the outside world is evidence that it exists...

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728573]The size of two is as big as a boat. There, I provided another wrong answer. Illogical answers are still wrong. Also, you've provided a non-scientific question anyway. It's definitional. The scientific method can't prove how big 2 is.[/QUOTE] I think you should look at the Wiki for Axioms. I didn't need to rule out boat to rule out an infinite number of answers. Your boat bears no connection to what we were discussing. A set of infinite entries does not have to include all possible entries. What is the Bullshit you believe in that brings you to having this standpoint by the way. Except Aliens which of course gets bullshit the second you say you "belive they exist" instead of "it's very likely that they exist"

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728573]The size of two is as big as a boat. There, I provided another wrong answer. Illogical answers are still wrong. Also, you've provided a non-scientific question anyway. It's definitional. The scientific method can't prove how big 2 is.[/QUOTE] 2 is a number, numeral, and glyph symbolizing a quantitative amount, usually a pair. If the scientific method shows all the wrong answers, wouldn't the right answer then be just be the answer.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728737]I think you should look at the Wiki for Axioms. I didn't need to rule out boat to rule out an infinite number of answers. Your boat bears no connection to what we were discussing. A set of infinite entries does not have to include all possible entries. What is the Bullshit you believe in that brings you to having this standpoint by the way. Except Aliens which of course gets bullshit the second you say you "belive they exist" instead of "it's very likely that they exist"[/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to just be throwing up non-sequitur statements as if they coalesce around a central point that I just can't see. Axioms? Are you saying that math is an axiom? If so, then you need to realize that "2" is not equivalent to the meaning "2." Our word "2" is definitionally described as a representation of the meaning, but isn't equivalent to the meaning. Science can prove the specific meaning of the word "two," but can't prove the existence of the mathematical idea described by the word "two." About the infinite: what are you even talking about? It's not like we've agreed upon some set of infinite and any mention of something outside it is irrelevant. You've ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers, but not the infinite that I was referring to originally or logically. I've also already given the specific example of justice as something that the scientific method can't prove, but I also believe a person to rationally be able to hold as a basic belief. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] Please, make complete arguments, not vague statements where I have to fill the gaps.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728552]Take the idea of justice. So, I observe that every society and every person ever has a notion of justice. Everyone agrees that there is such a thing as a correct and incorrect response to actions (even if they don't agree what the response might be). So I hypothesize that justice exists. The problem, of course, is that there is no experient to run to prove that justice exists. It isn't that I can't find evidence, but that no possible scientific experiment exists to prove or disprove my hypothesis. Does this mean that justice doesn't exist? Wait, not so fast. Let's say I replace justice with the outside world. So, I observe the outside world. I hypothesize that the outside world really exists. Ooops... there's no scientific experiment I can run to prove that the outside world exists. Does that mean the outside world doesn't exist? Of course not! This is the idea of basic beliefs. Every person can rationally hold to certain basic truths based purely on their own experience until a defeater is supplied that shows their belief to be false. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] I'm not making a claim to a method (even though I've already mentioned basic beliefs). I'm not required to provide an alternative to show that their claim is false. Also note that I'm not saying the scientific method is always wrong or useless. I think it's amazing useful in specific circumstances.[/QUOTE] This sounds like your trying to say that since you can't come up with a fitting experiment for those hypotheses, then none exists for them? And on the subject of justice. It's a human concept, There's no need to prove it's existence because we made it.

[QUOTE=Jacen;49728861]This sounds like your trying to say that since you can't come up with a fitting experiment for those hypotheses, then none exists for them? And on the subject of justice. It's a human concept, There's no need to prove it's existence because we made it.[/QUOTE] Firstly, it exists in some of the greater apes to a lesser degree, and, secondly, we didn't "make" justice. We experience it just like we experience the physical outside world. I'm saying that it's not logically possible to create and experiment that proves the outside world because there's no way to get outside of your own experience.

[QUOTE=Jacen;49728861]This sounds like your trying to say that since you can't come up with a fitting experiment for those hypotheses, then none exists for them? And on the subject of justice. It's a human concept, There's no need to prove it's existence because we made it.[/QUOTE] Prove to me that tommorow will resemble today. Or that logic is a thing. Or that mathematics is real. Or that what you see is what is real. Or that this isn't a simulation. Or that the world is determined rather than probablistic, or vice versa. Prove to me the world didn't start last thursday.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728839]I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to just be throwing up non-sequitur statements as if they coalesce around a central point that I just can't see. Axioms? Are you saying that math is an axiom? If so, then you need to realize that "2" is not equivalent to the meaning "2." Our word "2" is definitionally described as a representation of the meaning, but isn't equivalent to the meaning. About the infinite: what are you even talking about? It's not like we've agreed upon some set of infinite and any mention of something outside it is irrelevant. You've ruled out an infinite number of wrong answers, but not the infinite that I was referring to originally or logically. I've also already given the specific example of justice as something that the scientific method can't prove, but I also believe a person to rationally be able to hold as a basic belief.[/QUOTE] Well about [QUOTE=sgman91;49728522]I mean, you're just wrong about that. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to any question. If the scientific method only showed us what is wrong, then it would never get us closer to showing what is right.[/QUOTE] Of course. And you still didn't read what people tell you. Scientific method doesn't need to prove your weird example. The size of two can be boat. The 1 is simply half boat and 3 is 1.5 boat. No biggie. Hell the size of 1m used to be a random piece of metal the French had lying around with copies of it all over the world. What I don't get is how you are at one point arguing that logic(and that is what the scientific method is the result of) can not prove itself (which it of course can not that's why I said you should look up [B]Axioms[/B]) yet try to somehow disprove the scientific method with illogical statements. Those can be tackled by scientific method. I had to look up coalesce by the way, cool word, thanks for that. Now what illogical thing do you believe in that makes you feel hurt when people apply scientific methods to it, come on, you can say it. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;49728888]Prove to me that tommorow will resemble today. Or that logic is a thing. Or that mathematics is real. Or that what you see is what is real. Or that this isn't a simulation. Or that the world is determined rather than probablistic, or vice versa. Prove to me the world didn't start last thursday.[/QUOTE] It most likely didn't Mr. Kierkegaard. Most likely.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728905]Well about Of course. And you still didn't read what people tell you. Scientific method doesn't need to prove your weird example. The size of two can be boat. The 1 is simply half boat and 3 is 1.5 boat. No biggie. Hell the size of 1m used to be a random piece of metal the French had lying around with copies of it all over the world. What I don't get is how you are at one point arguing that logic(and that is what the scientific method is the result of) can not prove itself (which it of course can not that's why I said you should look up [B]Axioms[/B]) yet try to somehow disprove the scientific method with illogical statements. Those can be tackled by scientific method. I had to look up coalesce by the way, cool word, thanks for that. Now what illogical thing do you believe in that makes you feel hurt when people apply scientific methods to it, come on, you can say it.[/QUOTE] You seem to be equating logic and the scientific method. That simply isn't the case. The scientific method is based on logic, but is not equivalent to it. Justice, for example, is not illogical, but can't be proven with the scientific method.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49728888]Prove to me that tommorow will resemble today. Or that logic is a thing. Or that mathematics is real. Or that what you see is what is real. Or that this isn't a simulation. Or that the world is determined rather than probablistic, or vice versa. Prove to me the world didn't start last thursday.[/QUOTE] Last thursdayism is an example of the extremity of human knowledge and how little we can know Practically we can know lots. Realistically we barely even know we exist. That's the only thing we can know. But practically, to build the world around us, some assumptions are made. Those assumptions, seem to hold up based on logic, that logic seems to hold up based on the world/universe providing a foundation that accepts those things. If logic didn't exist you couldn't think logic didn't exist. It's a self fulfilling reality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728916]You seem to be equating logic and the scientific method. That simply isn't the case. The scientific method is based on logic, but is not equivalent to it. Justice, for example, is not illogical, but can't be proven with the scientific method.[/QUOTE] That's why I said it's [I]a result of logic[/I]

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728929]That's why I said it's [I]a result of logic[/I][/QUOTE] You then said: "Now what [B]illogical thing[/B] do you believe in that makes you feel hurt when people apply scientific methods to it, come on, you can say it."

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728941]You then said: "Now what [B]illogical thing[/B] do you believe in that makes you feel hurt when people apply scientific methods to it, come on, you can say it."[/QUOTE] Yes I did. Illogical things usually get disproven by science. Like parapsychology for example. Or Alien butt probes.

[QUOTE=Killuah;49728947]Yes I did.[/QUOTE] Then it's a non-sequitur of a question because a belief doesn't have to be illogical to not be provable by the scientific method. Kind of like justice that I've mentioned at least 4 times now and you've ignored.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49728922]Last thursdayism is an example of the extremity of human knowledge and how little we can know Practically we can know lots. Realistically we barely even know we exist. That's the only thing we can know. But practically, to build the world around us, some assumptions are made. Those assumptions, seem to hold up based on logic, that logic seems to hold up based on the world/universe providing a foundation that accepts those things. If logic didn't exist you couldn't think logic didn't exist. It's a self fulfilling reality.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Some things must be taken as axiomatic, and it just so happens that some people bundle certain groups of these axioms into a logically necessary existent that they call God. They then ascribe qualities to him like "honesty" coming from the fact that we accept that our senses are, unless otherwise acted upon, reliable. All of this was more against his insistence of the scientific method being required to make all judgements. You cannot call something bullshit just because it is conceptually impossible to imagine a possible world without it - to set up failure conditions of an experiment.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49728959]Exactly. Some things must be taken as axiomatic, and it just so happens that some people bundle certain groups of these axioms into a logically necessary existent that they call God. They then ascribe qualities to him like "honesty" coming from the fact that we accept that our senses are, unless otherwise acted upon, reliable. All of this was more against his insistence of the scientific method being required to make all judgements. You cannot call something bullshit just because it is conceptually impossible to imagine a possible world without it - to set up failure conditions of an experiment.[/QUOTE] It's a limitation of consciouness. We're only able to assess things to the degree our built in tools, and brain can deal with things. We aren't meant to understand cause and effect, reality and it's physics. We're meant to understand hunting, survival, and not much else. Everything else is us stretching our brains to the limits.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729009]It's a limitation of consciouness. We're only able to assess things to the degree our built in tools, and brain can deal with things. We aren't meant to understand cause and effect, reality and it's physics. We're meant to understand hunting, survival, and not much else. Everything else is us stretching our brains to the limits.[/QUOTE] Which is why we must anthropomorphise such concepts to a certain extent - to make them more palatable for us.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49728953]Then it's a non-sequitur of a question because a belief doesn't have to be illogical to not be provable by the scientific method. Kind of like justice that I've mentioned at least 4 times now and you've ignored.[/QUOTE] What are you actually arguing? What is your point? You've already avoided responding with a valid alternative to the scientific method.