Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

For how many times.........

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 5:04:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For how many times, scientists would keep discovering or let me say, keep altering the logic that must be consistent before or after the discoveries? If logic is valid all the time, how one can find a possible link between totally opposing theories or perceptions, just after the matter of transitory time span of research ?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 9:56:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?

It can be verified again if the technology has increased to the point where I far better measurement can be determined.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 9:56:51 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?

It can be verified again if the technology has increased to the point where I far better measurement can be determined.

Dear if Theory can be verified again (and if also gets empirical evidence as a proof for its validation in our 2nd attempt of verifivation) ................ then "what's the quality of the evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?" or I'm asking for the validity of that previous evidence. Surely, that old evidence was not valid because of the lack of technology required to get the actual knowledge, so was not an evidence and can't be called evidence anymore to prove something definitely. Right?

So then how one can rely on so called evidence that may not be an evidence, possible to be nullified by technology (or research) in future.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:16:31 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/12/2013 9:56:51 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?

It can be verified again if the technology has increased to the point where I far better measurement can be determined.

Dear if Theory can be verified again (and if also gets empirical evidence as a proof for its validation in our 2nd attempt of verifivation) ................ then "what's the quality of the evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?" or I'm asking for the validity of that previous evidence. Surely, that old evidence was not valid because of the lack of technology required to get the actual knowledge, so was not an evidence and can't be called evidence anymore to prove something definitely. Right?

So then how one can rely on so called evidence that may not be an evidence, possible to be nullified by technology (or research) in future.

It is because when the evidence was first given, that was the highest quality of evidence that was technologically possible. Years pass, and the technology gets better, and the time may come that the higher quality of technology leads to a completely different way of looking at something.

Take the history of the observation of Saturn for example. When being observed around four centuries ago by Galileo, Saturn appeared in the rudimentary telescopes as a sphere with two lobes on either side. Galileo concluded that these lobes were two large moons, which was for about 45 years the accepted fact until Huygens, with a more powerful telescope, was able to resolve the image if Saturn enough that the lobes became a flat disc, which are the rings we know of today.

This is why things like the Big Bang are called theories, because there is always a chance that some new technology could debunk the whole thing (or at least major parts of it).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:32:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:26:30 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 12:16:31 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/12/2013 9:56:51 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?

It can be verified again if the technology has increased to the point where I far better measurement can be determined.

Dear if Theory can be verified again (and if also gets empirical evidence as a proof for its validation in our 2nd attempt of verifivation) ................ then "what's the quality of the evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?" or I'm asking for the validity of that previous evidence. Surely, that old evidence was not valid because of the lack of technology required to get the actual knowledge, so was not an evidence and can't be called evidence anymore to prove something definitely. Right?

So then how one can rely on so called evidence that may not be an evidence, possible to be nullified by technology (or research) in future.

It is because when the evidence was first given, that was the highest quality of evidence that was technologically possible. Years pass, and the technology gets better, and the time may come that the higher quality of technology leads to a completely different way of looking at something.

Take the history of the observation of Saturn for example. When being observed around four centuries ago by Galileo, Saturn appeared in the rudimentary telescopes as a sphere with two lobes on either side. Galileo concluded that these lobes were two large moons, which was for about 45 years the accepted fact until Huygens, with a more powerful telescope, was able to resolve the image if Saturn enough that the lobes became a flat disc, which are the rings we know of today.

This is why things like the Big Bang are called theories, because there is always a chance that some new technology could debunk the whole thing (or at least major parts of it).

You're right in what you are explaining but my point remained untouched and even became more crucial after your explanation. I'm questioning the reliance of our bubble evidences.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:36:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:32:58 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/12/2013 12:26:30 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 12:16:31 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/12/2013 9:56:51 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:07:41 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/11/2013 7:50:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And they are not changing the logic, they are altering theories based on evidence that shows them to be incorrect. It's called progress.

So you are stating, once a theory is classified as incorrect based on "evidence", it cannot be verified again, based on another evidence?

If not, then what is the quality of that evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?

It can be verified again if the technology has increased to the point where I far better measurement can be determined.

Dear if Theory can be verified again (and if also gets empirical evidence as a proof for its validation in our 2nd attempt of verifivation) ................ then "what's the quality of the evidence that made that theory incorrect at first hand?" or I'm asking for the validity of that previous evidence. Surely, that old evidence was not valid because of the lack of technology required to get the actual knowledge, so was not an evidence and can't be called evidence anymore to prove something definitely. Right?

So then how one can rely on so called evidence that may not be an evidence, possible to be nullified by technology (or research) in future.

It is because when the evidence was first given, that was the highest quality of evidence that was technologically possible. Years pass, and the technology gets better, and the time may come that the higher quality of technology leads to a completely different way of looking at something.

Take the history of the observation of Saturn for example. When being observed around four centuries ago by Galileo, Saturn appeared in the rudimentary telescopes as a sphere with two lobes on either side. Galileo concluded that these lobes were two large moons, which was for about 45 years the accepted fact until Huygens, with a more powerful telescope, was able to resolve the image if Saturn enough that the lobes became a flat disc, which are the rings we know of today.

This is why things like the Big Bang are called theories, because there is always a chance that some new technology could debunk the whole thing (or at least major parts of it).

You're right in what you are explaining but my point remained untouched and even became more crucial after your explanation. I'm questioning the reliance of our bubble evidences.

We rely on them, because there is nothing better to go off of. If you see sufficient evidence for something that is true, it would be silly to wait until it was proven true, because that may never happen. The "reliability" comes from pragmatism, as you have to draw the line somewhere, or else science wouldn't exist, and we would all just believe in literal interpretations of holy books.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown