[QUOTE=Ricool06;49729035]What are you actually arguing? What is your point? You've already stated you have no valid alternative to the scientific method.[/QUOTE]
His point seems to be that there are truths, real truths, which science is orthogonal to.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729044]His point seems to be that there are truths, real truths, which science is orthogonal to.[/QUOTE]
I think just because there's human concepts that seem to rest beyond the physical realm in to what can really on be described as "Meta physics" doesn't mean truth is at a right angle to science, which to be honest Zen, i'm not sure what exactly that means.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729044]His point seems to be that there are truths, real truths, which science is orthogonal to.[/QUOTE]
That has no bearing on whether the scientific method is useful or not, and Maddox never said it was the only method either. Is sgman91 disagreeing with something he thought Maddox said?
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729061]I think just because there's human concepts that seem to rest beyond the physical realm in to what can really on be described as "Meta physics" doesn't mean truth is at a right angle to science, which to be honest Zen, i'm not sure what exactly that means.[/QUOTE]
There are 2 definitions to orthogonal. One is "at right-angles to" the other is "statistically independent".
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49729064]That has no bearing on whether the scientific method is useful or not, and Maddox never said it was the only method either. Is sgman91 disagreeing with something he thought Maddox said?
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
There are 2 definitions to orthogonal. One is "at right-angles to" the other is "statistically independent".[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone is denying that science is useful. The point is that it isn't the only useful method and furthermore it might be incapable of reaching some truths.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729061]I think just because there's human concepts that seem to rest beyond the physical realm in to what can really on be described as "Meta physics" doesn't mean truth is at a right angle to science, which to be honest Zen, i'm not sure what exactly that means.[/QUOTE]
I should have clarified. I am not saying "truth" is orthogonal (Fundamentally independent) from science, I am saying that SOME truths are, in agreeance with Sgman.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729087]I don't think anyone is denying that science is useful. The point is that it isn't the only useful method and furthermore it might be incapable of reaching some truths.
[/QUOTE]
But science isn't designed to reveal truths, it's designed to reveal untruths.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729087]I don't think anyone is denying that science is useful. The point is that it isn't the only useful method and furthermore it might be incapable of reaching some truths.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
I should have clarified. I am not saying "truth" is orthogonal (Fundamentally independent) from science, I am saying that SOME truths are, in agreeance with Sgman.[/QUOTE]
Then my question becomes "How do you know those truths are truths if they are unverifiable?"
What truths are we talking about?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729098]Then my question becomes "How do you know those truths are truths if they are unverifiable?"[/QUOTE]
The idea of basic beliefs shows that some properly basic beliefs are so fundamentally verified by personal experience that we are rational to believe them until a defeater is shown.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729098]Then my question becomes "How do you know those truths are truths if they are unverifiable?"[/QUOTE]
We know it by the fact that it is impossible to imagine them being otherwise. We call these logically necessary. There is no way to assume a lack of logic without treating that with further logic.
If a truth is COMPLETELY unfalsifiable then perhaps it means it is necessarily true.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729097]But science isn't designed to reveal truths, it's designed to reveal untruths.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and what I am saying is that some truths cannot be intelligibly exposed to such attempts.
[QUOTE=Adarrek;49728674]He should have brought up the retarded flat earth theory in this video.[/QUOTE]
I think in one of the recent episodes of his podcast he dug into flat earthers
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
Actualy no, he went into sandy hook conspiracy dipshits, but flat earthers were mentioned as a possible future topic iirc
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729116]
Yes, and what I am saying is that some truths cannot be intelligibly exposed to such attempts.[/QUOTE]
Such as?
[QUOTE=phygon;49729131]Such as?[/QUOTE]
[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]
I love cake. Don't know how to make it though.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49729138]I love cake. Don't know how to make it though.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't have much to do with what he's saying.
You can clearly prove that cake exists and that you find it delicious
You can also go look up how to make cake.
It's not that you, personally, can't prove them, but that they are not possible to prove through the scientific method.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;49729149]That doesn't have much to do with what he's saying.
You can clearly prove that cake exists and that you find it delicious
You can also go look up how to make cake.[/QUOTE]
You can clearly prove that science exists and that some guy like guys it. Is the guy necessarily good at it? No? Does that really matter?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49729156]You can clearly prove that science exists and that some guy like guys it. Is the guy necessarily good at it? No? Does that really matter?[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I don't follow your point.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49729156]You can clearly prove that science exists and that some guy like guys it. Is the guy necessarily good at it? No? Does that really matter?[/QUOTE]
What?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729134]s[/QUOTE]
You're telling me to prove things with science which is impossible. Science cannot prove anything, only disprove falsehood. It can disprove falsehood with 100% accuracy if you have enough information.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729165]You're telling me to prove things with science which is impossible. Science cannot prove anything, only disprove falsehood. It can disprove falsehood with 100% accuracy if you have enough information.[/QUOTE]
No, I am asking you to try to disprove some things, and making the claim that it is conceptually impossible.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729165]You're telling me to prove things with science which is impossible. Science cannot prove anything, only disprove falsehood. It can disprove falsehood with 100% accuracy if you have enough information.[/QUOTE]
Only if you believe in verificationism. (Essentually no modern day secular philosophers do.)
Like I've been saying, there are things that science can't prove or disprove, like the existence of justice.
[QUOTE=SuperLoz;49728364]He kept using the words "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably. That's my only issue with the video.[/QUOTE]
I believe the word "theory" is used tongue-in-cheek.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729134][/QUOTE]
Pure sophistry. Just because you can't really prove anything to be absolute perfect "truth" doesn't mean wishful thinking and untestable speculation can get its foot in the door with time-tested rational inquiry.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49729185]Pure sophistry. Just because you can't really prove anything to be absolute perfect "truth" [B]doesn't wishful thinking and untestable speculation can get its foot in the door with time-tested rational inquiry.[/B][/QUOTE]
Could you rephrase this? I don't understand.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729176]No, I am asking you to try to disprove some things, and making the claim that it is conceptually impossible.[/QUOTE]
Your post didn't say disprove, it said prove. Given enough information science could very well disprove those things (or not, which would mean that we can say with more certainty that they are likely). There isn't enough evidence yet, so it cannot at the present moment. The claim that the universe is made up of tiny particles was at one point completely non-touchable by science because we didn't yet have the tools, and now we do, and we can say to a reasonable degree of certainty that atoms are a thing that exist that interact in certain ways.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729180]Only if you believe in verificationism. (Essentually no modern day secular philosophers do.)
Like I've been saying, there are things that science can't prove or disprove, like the existence of justice.[/QUOTE]
Justice is [I]subjective[/I], science is about [I]objective[/I] things. Philosophers can go chew cud when it comes to a lot of things, a lot of philosophies are masturbatory logic traps. Hell, a lot of modern philosophers are just sophists that will say whatever they can to make themselves seem correct even if their arguments have no substance whatsoever behind them. You can't form a reasonable philosophy by starting with "the universe is X" and then working backwards, you need to do it the other way around.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729238]Justice is [I]subjective[/I], science is about [I]objective[/I] things. Philosophers can go chew cud when it comes to a lot of things, a lot of philosophies are masturbatory logic traps.[/QUOTE]
You're confusing epistemology and ontology.
Epistemologically, everything is subjective, but my question is about ontology. I'm asking whether justice exists objectively or not. It's a question that cannot be answered one way or the other by science unless you start with the assumption that everything not provable by science doesn't exist. (verificationism or logical positivism)
The hate for philosophy in new-atheism really is ironic because they are often the most prone to basic philosophical mistakes.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729194]Could you rephrase this? I don't understand.[/QUOTE]
Asking "how we can be real if our eyes aren't real" doesn't suddenly make mathematics crumble at its foundation and pondering if other people see colors different from you doesn't mean belief and philosophy are valid in the same light
[QUOTE=dai;49729257]Asking "how we can be real if our eyes aren't real" doesn't suddenly make mathematics crumble at its foundation and pondering if other people see colors different from you doesn't mean belief and philosophy are valid in the same light[/QUOTE]
No one is saying that mathematics is crumbling or should crumble at it's foundation. So I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729271]No one is saying that mathematics is crumbling or should crumble at it's foundation. So I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.[/QUOTE]
[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]
He's saying that those can't be proven by the scientific method, not that they shouldn't be believed.
That's the whole point.
If the scientific method were the ONLY way to know truth, THEN mathematics would be crumbling at its foundation. Our entire argument is that the scientific method isn't the only way to know truth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
