Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Constant Fallacy

Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 3:36:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
THE CONSTANT FALLACY
There is a particular logical flaw that is continually being made in the realm of sciences that deal with interpretation, called 'the constant fallacy.'

Formulated the fallacy appears as follows:
a. X appears constant
b. B shows X to take this long to form
c. We assume B is valid because J appears constant
d. It takes J this long to form
e. Because we assume J has always been constant then B is valid and B shows that X is this old if constant.


This formulation seems reasonable but we do have some major assumptions there that the whole theory hinges on. This theory is typical of how dating techniques and any aging measurement works. We will say that X is the universe. B is our dating technique. J is measurable physical evidence on earth. Now we can see and know how J forms and how J ages because it happens in front of us. Therefore 'if' J is constant then we can measure time from J. The measurement used is called B. B can test J and always shows the correct measurement, therefore it is valid. Now we can take our measurements from J and use B to calculate how long X is. This is if X also is constant. We have one big assumption on multiple levels. When we do any kind of measurement that is outside our viewable range and relies on any kind of test, then we are assuming that everything is constant from what we see. When anyone measures the universe or this planet, they are using this constant appliance.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 3:48:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you can find a way to science without the assumption of uniformity, then please do so. I challenge you to defend anything in science without assuming uniformity.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 3:52:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 3:48:48 AM, muzebreak wrote:
If you can find a way to science without the assumption of uniformity, then please do so. I challenge you to defend anything in science without assuming uniformity.

Ah, uniformity is not the problem. The assumption that uniformity has always been the case is the problem. The assumption that because what happens now, has always happened is the problem.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:59:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 3:52:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 3:48:48 AM, muzebreak wrote:
If you can find a way to science without the assumption of uniformity, then please do so. I challenge you to defend anything in science without assuming uniformity.

Ah, uniformity is not the problem. The assumption that uniformity has always been the case is the problem. The assumption that because what happens now, has always happened is the problem.


Bold is a tautology, underlined is the basis of uniformity.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:00:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And my challenge still stands.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:14:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://9gag.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:43:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?

That the OP's view on science might not take this into account?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:09:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:43:56 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?

That the OP's view on science might not take this into account?

Is that a statement or a question......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.:

And again we have the 'Constant Fallacy' at work. I ask how do you determine everything is consistent when everything is constantly changing? Time is not constant, it is relative. In other words, for the semantically impared, time is a variable rather than a constant.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:49:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:41:17 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.:

And again we have the 'Constant Fallacy' at work. I ask how do you determine everything is consistent when everything is constantly changing? Time is not constant, it is relative. In other words, for the semantically impared, time is a variable rather than a constant.

And again we have "Last Thursdayism" at work. Your arguments are the same as those for solipsism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:41:17 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.:

And again we have the 'Constant Fallacy' at work. I ask how do you determine everything is consistent when everything is constantly changing? Time is not constant, it is relative. In other words, for the semantically impared, time is a variable rather than a constant.

False dichotomy. Time is constantly relative. A constant is not necessarily invariable. For instance, time. When you are going faster it goes slower. But this is consistent. For instance, I can tell you that if I am going at x speed, time will be moving, relative to me, at y speed. This will always work, because the numbers are constant. If they weren't, science wouldn't work.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:54:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:49:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:41:17 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.:

And again we have the 'Constant Fallacy' at work. I ask how do you determine everything is consistent when everything is constantly changing? Time is not constant, it is relative. In other words, for the semantically impared, time is a variable rather than a constant.

And again we have "Last Thursdayism" at work. Your arguments are the same as those for solipsism.:

No, I do not maintain that everything outside my mind is unsure. In fact everything we can see and touch is sure. You are taking one theory and stitching it on to mine. Solipsism is very different then. What I am saying is you can not(with confidence) take todays constant observences and conclude them for yesterday(millions of yeasr ago.) Same-so yesterday is not the same as today.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:00:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Aren't there things that need to be the same in the past for the present to be a certain way?

I remember someone saying something about evolution and radiodating, I think it's called, where many different things matched up. If they changed then they wouldn't have matched up, but they did.

I understand that this isn't a very detailed point.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:09:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:43:56 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?

That the OP's view on science might not take this into account?

Is that a statement or a question......

It was a statement posed as a question because I thought the point was obvious to you and you were just being obnoxious. Maybe I was wrong, but when people ask a few questions and then say "What[']s your point?" it does often does come off like that.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:17:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:03:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:09:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:43:56 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?

That the OP's view on science might not take this into account?

Is that a statement or a question......

It was a statement posed as a question because I thought the point was obvious to you and you were just being obnoxious. Maybe I was wrong, but when people ask a few questions and then say "What[']s your point?" it does often does come off like that.

To be fair, I was being a bit obnoxious because I thought you were defending his view of the scientific method.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:54:59 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:49:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:41:17 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:30:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Asserting that without any evidence of that being the case, though, is ridiculous. Every bit of evidence we have points to consistency. To say "yeah, but just outside that evidence it might not be" is to, essentially, buy into Last Thursdayism.:

And again we have the 'Constant Fallacy' at work. I ask how do you determine everything is consistent when everything is constantly changing? Time is not constant, it is relative. In other words, for the semantically impared, time is a variable rather than a constant.

And again we have "Last Thursdayism" at work. Your arguments are the same as those for solipsism.:

No, I do not maintain that everything outside my mind is unsure. In fact everything we can see and touch is sure. You are taking one theory and stitching it on to mine. Solipsism is very different then. What I am saying is you can not(with confidence) take todays constant observences and conclude them for yesterday(millions of yeasr ago.) Same-so yesterday is not the same as today.

We have absolutely no reason to think that. Every observation we have shows consistency. So to say that "Well, maybe it was different, you can't be sure!" is exactly the same argument for Last Thursdayism, where "You can't be sure the world didn't just spring into being Last Thursday".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:30:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 3:36:34 AM, Pennington wrote:
THE CONSTANT FALLACY
There is a particular logical flaw that is continually being made in the realm of sciences that deal with interpretation, called 'the constant fallacy.'

Formulated the fallacy appears as follows:
a. X appears constant
b. B shows X to take this long to form
c. We assume B is valid because J appears constant
d. It takes J this long to form
e. Because we assume J has always been constant then B is valid and B shows that X is this old if constant.


This formulation seems reasonable but we do have some major assumptions there that the whole theory hinges on. This theory is typical of how dating techniques and any aging measurement works. We will say that X is the universe. B is our dating technique. J is measurable physical evidence on earth. Now we can see and know how J forms and how J ages because it happens in front of us. Therefore 'if' J is constant then we can measure time from J. The measurement used is called B. B can test J and always shows the correct measurement, therefore it is valid. Now we can take our measurements from J and use B to calculate how long X is. This is if X also is constant. We have one big assumption on multiple levels. When we do any kind of measurement that is outside our viewable range and relies on any kind of test, then we are assuming that everything is constant from what we see. When anyone measures the universe or this planet, they are using this constant appliance.

This applies to all inductive reasoning. Your critique leaves you without the ability to predict whether the sun will appear to rise in the east or west.

You also lose the ability to assume books have any use. Say you read book x and memorize every rule; you have NO way to know book x won't contain entirely different rules tomorrow.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:17:32 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:03:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:09:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:43:56 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:33:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:30:10 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:13:25 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:43:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:07:30 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:50:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Science works more on the basis of "if not a, then not p... if not b, then not p... if not c then not p" etc.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you representing falsification?

I think so.

Falsification relies on uniformity......

And if it shows that there isn't uniformity, it's either wrong, or a variable(s) is/are changing?

I agree. Whats your point?

That the OP's view on science might not take this into account?

Is that a statement or a question......

It was a statement posed as a question because I thought the point was obvious to you and you were just being obnoxious. Maybe I was wrong, but when people ask a few questions and then say "What[']s your point?" it does often does come off like that.

To be fair, I was being a bit obnoxious because I thought you were defending his view of the scientific method.

Lol, it's ok.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:00:11 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:15:24 PM, Pennington wrote:
I understand know science relies on falsification and consistency. In our everyday life these are very valuable instruments. In looking into the past or the future being constant is a assumption because we do not if the past has always been as constant as things are today. If things have not been as constant as they are today then any theory that uses techniques that rely on constant behavior is not valid in the past.

Aren't there things that need to be the same in the past for the present to be a certain way? :
Very much. Some things could be the same and some could not be, we don't know that and to say otherwise is just speculation.

I remember someone saying something about evolution and radiodating, I think it's called, where many different things matched up. If they changed then they wouldn't have matched up, but they did.:
Nope. They would still be the same.

I understand that this isn't a very detailed point.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:39:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:30:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/7/2013 3:36:34 AM, Pennington wrote:
THE CONSTANT FALLACY
There is a particular logical flaw that is continually being made in the realm of sciences that deal with interpretation, called 'the constant fallacy.'

Formulated the fallacy appears as follows:
a. X appears constant
b. B shows X to take this long to form
c. We assume B is valid because J appears constant
d. It takes J this long to form
e. Because we assume J has always been constant then B is valid and B shows that X is this old if constant.


This formulation seems reasonable but we do have some major assumptions there that the whole theory hinges on. This theory is typical of how dating techniques and any aging measurement works. We will say that X is the universe. B is our dating technique. J is measurable physical evidence on earth. Now we can see and know how J forms and how J ages because it happens in front of us. Therefore 'if' J is constant then we can measure time from J. The measurement used is called B. B can test J and always shows the correct measurement, therefore it is valid. Now we can take our measurements from J and use B to calculate how long X is. This is if X also is constant. We have one big assumption on multiple levels. When we do any kind of measurement that is outside our viewable range and relies on any kind of test, then we are assuming that everything is constant from what we see. When anyone measures the universe or this planet, they are using this constant appliance.

This applies to all inductive reasoning. Your critique leaves you without the ability to predict whether the sun will appear to rise in the east or west.:
Not so, you assume this applies to everything. It could apply to certain things and materials, not all.

You also lose the ability to assume books have any use. Say you read book x and memorize every rule; you have NO way to know book x won't contain entirely different rules tomorrow.:

Exzactly to assume otherwise leaves you with discrediting possibilities that are reasonable.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:49:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:

False dichotomy. Time is constantly relative. A constant is not necessarily invariable. For instance, time. When you are going faster it goes slower. But this is consistent. For instance, I can tell you that if I am going at x speed, time will be moving, relative to me, at y speed. This will always work, because the numbers are constant. If they weren't, science wouldn't work.:

"The only thing constant in life is change"
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:11:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:57:38 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:49:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:

False dichotomy. Time is constantly relative. A constant is not necessarily invariable. For instance, time. When you are going faster it goes slower. But this is consistent. For instance, I can tell you that if I am going at x speed, time will be moving, relative to me, at y speed. This will always work, because the numbers are constant. If they weren't, science wouldn't work.:

"The only thing constant in life is change"

You really give credit to a person if you quote them. This is also incorrect. There are many other constants than change. But I don't see what this has to do with what we are talking about.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.