Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science taken by faith?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Faith, is not knowledge, but and inclination to feel, something is, True. So faith its self is, but there is nothing in faith, which constatutes any thing more then a sensation of motivation inclination. That is the feeling of expectation, has within itself nothing of that which its expecting.

But what bothers me the most is how I have not seen ONE PERSON in DDO, you have any reason But Faith as to the fact that science works or how infact it predicts.

The Fool: where I would argue that because many are lazy to figure out how it is working its progresses at half or even lower then the rate that it could be.

Challenge:
Who here claims science as the only way to know, has been able to Solve the Humian problem" which unchallenged and according to Hume. "The next instance can be the disconferming incident of any scientific principle."

Or even anybody give plausible explanations?

There is a Good anwer, but isn't it fair to suppose that all those who don't know how or why are appealling to FAITH.

Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".

With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:00:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".

With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?

No reason why it will Necessarily happen that way again..

It just would seem to.. as it's held so far.

In relying upon it, betting upon it.. we get rewarded.

it's the best bet available... Makes sense to take it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:10:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:00:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".
it's the best bet available... Makes sense to take it.

just have to also remain open to change... and React accordingly/Embrace Reality when/if it happens
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:30:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience. So, Hume's skepticism on this is just.

However, I don't think that Hume ever argued that that it is likely that the universe will stop operating as a series of predictable patterns ("Sun goes up, sun goes down. Tide goes in, tide goes out." to quote another famous philosopher).

So, since it is more likely that predictable patterns won't cease, this skepticism, though very interesting, isn't very disturbing to me.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

1. All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
2. All general mathematical axioms (identity)
3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)
4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)
5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

There are probably many others.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

So, the question is, so what?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:31:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:00:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".

With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?

The Fool: don't be offended, I am going to be harsh, its a toughfy.

No reason why it will Necessarily happen that way again..

The Fool: that is my claim about what most peoples understanding will boil down too.

It just would seem to.. as it's held so far.

The Fool: So we want to know the justification for its acceptence.

In relying upon it, betting upon it.. we get rewarded.

The Fool: you are presupposing it here. For that is another scientific theory.

it's the best bet available... Makes sense to take it.

The Fool: A Theologin would say it make more sense to say it work because God is not a deciever. The question is do we have anything better then that?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:32:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:31:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:00:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".

With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?

The Fool: don't be offended, I am going to be harsh, its a toughfy.

No reason why it will Necessarily happen that way again..

The Fool: that is my claim about what most peoples understanding will boil down too.

It just would seem to.. as it's held so far.

The Fool: So we want to know the justification for its acceptence.

In relying upon it, betting upon it.. we get rewarded.

The Fool: you are presupposing it here. For that is another scientific theory.

it's the best bet available... Makes sense to take it.

The Fool: A Theologin would say it make more sense to say it work because God is not a deciever. The question is do we have anything better then that?

I never debate a person who calls themself a "fool".
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:30:14 AM, vbaculum wrote:
The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience.

The Fool: this is very nice!!

So, Hume's skepticism on this is just.

The Fool: Hume would say if we don't conclude cause and effect on one occurance of something moving and then something else moving. Then what justificatoin do we have to say that by virue of happening more times does it now be considered cause and effect.(aka the next moment, can be the moment that proofs your cause and effect wrong.)

So, since it is more likely that predictable patterns won't cease, this skepticism, though very interesting, isn't very disturbing to me.

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you? People know things.

So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

So, the question is, so what?

The Fool: how are you answering and not knowing the quesiton at the sametime.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:51:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Duh. Turns out there's a difference between what's true and what's provable. Reduce to nihilism and Godel. At the limits, there's always something we "know"/feel to be true, but have no way of proving. So, in cases like the law of identity, we just take it as "self-evident" since we can't even conceive of things operating in any other way. Turns out, though, we made a good choice investing in science, because it has a better track record, and it's produced some pretty cool innovations. Religion has stagnated and produced almost nothing useful (inb4 "obscure example you don't know about") since the days when it used to fund exploration and laboratories and stuff (i.e. funding science).

Just gotta accept infinite meta-levels of not knowing stuff and impossible self-reference (e.g., logic proving itself).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:52:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:10:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:00:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/11/2012 9:56:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Does is not follow that most are realling on "because it worked in the past(if you memory is correct) it will continue to work in the future".
it's the best bet available... Makes sense to take it.

just have to also remain open to change... and React accordingly/Embrace Reality when/if it happens

The Fool: What is not reality? I would say everything is real, its rather a matter of categorization.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:57:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you?

Yes. I would. In fact, I did!

People know things.

So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

Faith? You mean, religious faith? It's better than religious faith because it is inherently open to testing, falsification, and change.


All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

There is no justification for it. It's an axiom. Justifying it would require validating the laws of physics at every location of the Universe. If you wish to do that, then go ahead. Bye.


4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

Practicality. If you have two theories, one of which has unnecessary elements, get rid of them.


5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

None. Again, justifying this would require testing the Laws of Physics at all points in time. If you want to do this, go ahead. Technically you could say we are already in the process of doing this, we're just limited at the rate in which we can do it.


There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

A conclusion not based on axioms isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom. A conclusion is necessarily derived from prior priniciples which must either be a conclusion itself, or an axiom. Hume's fork. You can't avoid it.


So, the question is, so what?

The Fool: how are you answering and not knowing the quesiton at the sametime.

How are you not even answering the question?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:05:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:51:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Duh. Turns out there's a difference between what's true and what's provable.

The Fool: Cool, can give an argument? Don't be a clown though.( That is more of a hint.) For a difference pressupposes a demarcation. So justify the demacation? (or is it "langauge games")

Reduce to nihilism and Godel.

The Fool: You can just appeal to authority what is his argument(HInt Godel is caught up in "language games")

At the limits, there's always something we "know"/feel to be true, but have no way of proving. So, in cases like the law of identity, we just take it as "self-evident"

The Fool: so we are trying to get a better explanation then faith. That is why not God?

since we can't even conceive of things operating in any other way.

The Fool: something in that, but as it stands its and appeal to ignorance.

Turns out, though, we made a good choice investing in science, because it has a better track record, and it's produced some pretty cool innovations.

The Fool: but even that is based of scientific inferences. Secondly, For what is the other world which is the BASE sample so that we can compare, and thus conclude we wouldnt have benfited other wise?

Religion has stagnated and produced almost nothing useful (inb4 "obscure example you don't know about") since the days when it used to fund exploration and laboratories and stuff (i.e. funding science).

Just gotta accept infinite meta-levels of not knowing stuff and impossible self-reference (e.g., logic proving itself).

The Fool: does it really makes sense to make a conclusive claim of infinite, is infinite something or it is a lack of. For I may just as well say there are not points on a line imparticular. Is it not a negative definition aka NOT-finite.

The Fool: Proof what is proof? (hints)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:24:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:57:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you?

Yes. I would. In fact, I did!

The Fool: its not supposed to be hostile, or fustrating, its suppose to be fun, and I am sure we will eventually reach it.

People know things.

The Fool: come on now.

So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

Faith? You mean, religious faith? It's better than religious faith because it is inherently open to testing, <strong>falsification, and change.


The Fool: this is good. The Bold that is.

All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

There is no justification for it. It's an axiom. Justifying it would require validating the laws of physics at every location of the Universe. If you wish to do that, then go ahead. Bye.

The Fool: don't take anything too seriously, here. Don't get made at me I am just giving the opposing argument. Are you reallly, just going to give up.

4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

Practicality. If you have two theories, one of which has unnecessary elements, get rid of them.


5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

None. Again, justifying this would require testing the Laws of Physics at all points in time. If you want to do this, go ahead. Technically you could say we are already in the process of doing this, we're just limited at the rate in which we can do it.

The Fool: Doing what, being challenging? what the hell are you talking about? How could we even know what justification means in the first place?


There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

A conclusion not based on axioms isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.

The Fool: isnt to say its an axiom, a Conclusion???? (hint: "language games?")

A conclusion is necessarily derived from prior priniciples which must either be a conclusion itself, or an axiom. Hume's fork. You can't avoid it.

The Fool: Must it alway be of prior principle? how are you claiming necessity of any kind? (Hint)

Hume: For lets say we are watching a pool games, we definitely recognized cause and effect in the game. But then we see spot a Fool, under the table. And we realize that the Balls were being moved with magnits by some fool. Do we still percieve the same cause and effect? Where does that cause and effect which was at first percieved go? aka The Fool, discomfirmed are recogniztion of cause and effect, and we know longer recognized it. ??????
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:27:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:24:06 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:57:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you?

Yes. I would. In fact, I did!

The Fool: its not supposed to be hostile, or fustrating, its suppose to be fun, and I am sure we will eventually reach it.

People know things.

The Fool: come on now.

So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

Faith? You mean, religious faith? It's better than religious faith because it is inherently open to testing, <strong>falsification, and change.


The Fool: this is good. The Bold that is.

All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

There is no justification for it. It's an axiom. Justifying it would require validating the laws of physics at every location of the Universe. If you wish to do that, then go ahead. Bye.

The Fool: don't take anything too seriously, here. Don't get made at me I am just giving the opposing argument. Are you reallly, just going to give up.

4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

Practicality. If you have two theories, one of which has unnecessary elements, get rid of them.


5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

None. Again, justifying this would require testing the Laws of Physics at all points in time. If you want to do this, go ahead. Technically you could say we are already in the process of doing this, we're just limited at the rate in which we can do it.

The Fool: Doing what, being challenging? what the hell are you talking about? How could we even know what justification means in the first place?



There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

A conclusion not based on axioms isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.

The Fool: isnt to say its an axiom, a Conclusion???? (hint: "language games?")

A conclusion is necessarily derived from prior priniciples which must either be a conclusion itself, or an axiom. Hume's fork. You can't avoid it.

The Fool: Must it alway be of prior principle? how are you claiming necessity of any kind? (Hint)


Hume: For lets say we are watching a pool games, we definitely recognized cause and effect in the game. But then we see spot a Fool, under the table. And we realize that the Balls were being moved with magnits by some fool. Do we still percieve the same cause and effect? Where does that cause and effect which was at first percieved go? aka The Fool, discomfirmed are recogniztion of cause and effect, and we know longer recognized it. ??????

So, the question is, so what?

Hume: How could we perceive cause and effect and then not, thus what justification do we have to think this can't happen anytime.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:32:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:24:06 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:57:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you?

Yes. I would. In fact, I did!

The Fool: its not supposed to be hostile, or fustrating, its suppose to be fun, and I am sure we will eventually reach it.

I'm not being hostile. I'm simply noting that I would call it "knowingly."


People know things.

The Fool: come on now.

Come on what... your talking to yourself here.


So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

Faith? You mean, religious faith? It's better than religious faith because it is inherently open to testing, strong>falsification, and change.


The Fool: this is good. The Bold that is.

All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

There is no justification for it. It's an axiom. Justifying it would require validating the laws of physics at every location of the Universe. If you wish to do that, then go ahead. Bye.

The Fool: don't take anything too seriously, here. Don't get made at me I am just giving the opposing argument. Are you reallly, just going to give up.

You're not giving an opposing argument. It's not "justified" except in a utilitarian sense. You have consistently failed to explain what the problem is here.


4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

Practicality. If you have two theories, one of which has unnecessary elements, get rid of them.


5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

None. Again, justifying this would require testing the Laws of Physics at all points in time. If you want to do this, go ahead. Technically you could say we are already in the process of doing this, we're just limited at the rate in which we can do it.

The Fool: Doing what, being challenging? what the hell are you talking about? How could we even know what justification means in the first place?

Sigh.




There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.

In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

A conclusion not based on axioms isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.

The Fool: isnt to say its an axiom, a Conclusion???? (hint: "language games?")

This sentence is gibberish. Rephrase, please. Hint: Spend more time on making yourself comprehensible and less time on superfluous punctuation. I'm sure those three extra question marks could have been better spent on an extra verb, or noun, or something.


A conclusion is necessarily derived from prior priniciples which must either be a conclusion itself, or an axiom. Hume's fork. You can't avoid it.

The Fool: Must it alway be of prior principle? how are you claiming necessity of any kind? (Hint)

Yes. A conclusion must be based on a prior principe, or it isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.



Hume: For lets say we are watching a pool games, we definitely recognized cause and effect in the game. But then we see spot a Fool, under the table. And we realize that the Balls were being moved with magnits by some fool. Do we still percieve the same cause and effect? Where does that cause and effect which was at first percieved go? aka The Fool, discomfirmed are recogniztion of cause and effect, and we know longer recognized it. ??????

Cool story, bro.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:36:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Progress:
Vbaculum: The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience.
Drafterman: becausea it has, falsification, and change.

Hume:
1 With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?

2 Every next moment can be the disconfirming incidence

3. if there is not cause and effect when we see something move and then the next thing move, and there is not cause and effect, why are we justified in claiming so if it happens more times.

4. For we may percieve cause and effect between object but one time we see something move with out the other. suddently are cause and effect disapears.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:14 AM, vbaculum wrote:
The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience.

The Fool: this is very nice!!

So, Hume's skepticism on this is just.

The Fool: Hume would say if we don't conclude cause and effect on one occurance of something moving and then something else moving. Then what justificatoin do we have to say that by virue of happening more times does it now be considered cause and effect.(aka the next moment, can be the moment that proofs your cause and effect wrong.)

So, since it is more likely that predictable patterns won't cease, this skepticism, though very interesting, isn't very disturbing to me.

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:43:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:32:22 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:24:06 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:57:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:50:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
Science knowingly and explicitly operates on a number of principles that are taken "on faith" in the manner that these principles are unproved or even unprovable:

The Fool:
I wouldn;t really call this knowlingly would you?

Yes. I would. In fact, I did!

The Fool: its not supposed to be hostile, or fustrating, its suppose to be fun, and I am sure we will eventually reach it.

I'm not being hostile. I'm simply noting that I would call it "knowingly."


People know things.

The Fool: come on now.

Come on what... your talking to yourself here.


So we are trying to get a better notion then supernatural faith explanations. We are trying to demarcate why it is better then faith.

Faith? You mean, religious faith? It's better than religious faith because it is inherently open to testing, strong>falsification, and change.


The Fool: this is good. The Bold that is.

All general logical axioms (law of non-contradiction, law of the excluded middle)
All general mathematical axioms (identity)

The Fool: is logic really any difference then math. really, I would argue that every logical rule is inherent in math all ready. (I don't mean this to be debatable)

3. The Coperinican principle (our position in the universe isn't special; generalized to the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere)

The Fool: For this is what we are trying to justify.

There is no justification for it. It's an axiom. Justifying it would require validating the laws of physics at every location of the Universe. If you wish to do that, then go ahead. Bye.

The Fool: don't take anything too seriously, here. Don't get made at me I am just giving the opposing argument. Are you reallly, just going to give up.

You're not giving an opposing argument. It's not "justified" except in a utilitarian sense. You have consistently failed to explain what the problem is here.


4. Occam's razor (law of parsinomy)

The Fool: With what justification. Hume isn't denying that we should use it, he is just challenging if whether of not we are justified, or not.?

Practicality. If you have two theories, one of which has unnecessary elements, get rid of them.


5. That the laws of physics stay the same over time.

The Fool: The question is what justifcation at all do we have to think so.

None. Again, justifying this would require testing the Laws of Physics at all points in time. If you want to do this, go ahead. Technically you could say we are already in the process of doing this, we're just limited at the rate in which we can do it.

The Fool: Doing what, being challenging? what the hell are you talking about?

Sigh.




There are probably many others.

The Fool: Come on now.
How could we even know what justification means in the first place?
In any epistemological field you are going to require such axioms as they are the things on which conclusions are build. No axioms; no conclusions.

The Fool: Which what justification is this even assertable?

A conclusion not based on axioms isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.

The Fool: isnt to say its an axiom, a Conclusion???? (hint: "language games?")

This sentence is gibberish. Rephrase, please.

The Fool: can you just be respectable, that is not that sentence is exactly what I meant. IF you don't understand it just ask and I will rewrite it.

Hint: Spend more time on making yourself comprehensible and less time on superfluous punctuation.

The Fool: you dont' have to participate, in this? its your choice.

I'm sure those three extra question marks could have been better spent on an extra verb, or noun, or something.


A conclusion is necessarily derived from prior priniciples which must either be a conclusion itself, or an axiom. Hume's fork. You can't avoid it.

The Fool: Must it alway be of prior principle? how are you claiming necessity of any kind? (Hint)

Yes. A conclusion must be based on a prior principe, or it isn't a conclusion, it's an axiom.

The Fool: but this is is a circular regression..


Hume: For lets say we are watching a pool games, we definitely recognized cause and effect in the game. But then we see spot a Fool, under the table. And we realize that the Balls were being moved with magnits by some fool. Do we still percieve the same cause and effect? Where does that cause and effect which was at first percieved go? aka The Fool, discomfirmed are recogniztion of cause and effect, and we know longer recognized it. ??????

Cool story, bro.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:46:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:30:14 AM, vbaculum wrote:
The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience.

The Fool: this is very nice!!

So, Hume's skepticism on this is just.

The Fool: Hume would say if we don't conclude cause and effect on one occurance of something moving and then something else moving. Then what justificatoin do we have to say that by virue of happening more times does it now be considered cause and effect.(aka the next moment, can be the moment that proofs your cause and effect wrong.)

So, since it is more likely that predictable patterns won't cease, this skepticism, though very interesting, isn't very disturbing to me.

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?

No I am sure you could google it, I am basing it from My epistemology professer,
But does it make a differnce, if Hume is saying that is no justifation for cause and effect and Quantum mechanics suggest the universe it randomness. How would appeal to authority make it more true. You should find easy enough though..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:48:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just incase it got mixed.

Progress:
Vbaculum: The only thing we can be certain of is that we experience.
Drafterman: becausea it has, falsification, and change.

Hume:
1 With time being simply a measure of change. What is the necessary connection that because something in past happened it will happen again in the future, and even more so something will ALWAYS and forever happen in the future?

2 Every next moment can be the disconfirming incidence

3. if there is not cause and effect when we see something move and then the next thing move, and there is not cause and effect, why are we justified in claiming so if it happens more times.

4. For we may percieve cause and effect between object but one time we see something move with out the other. suddently are cause and effect disapears.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 12:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?

http://www.quantumdiaries.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:03:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 12:18:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?

http://www.quantumdiaries.org...

Last I checked, there is no "law of cause & effect" in physics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:22:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 12:18:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?

http://www.quantumdiaries.org...

Good lord that's one of the worst interpretations of Hume, not mention causality, that I've seen as an actual attempted reference.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 5:34:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:05:28 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:51:33 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Duh. Turns out there's a difference between what's true and what's provable.

The Fool: Cool, can give an argument? Don't be a clown though.( That is more of a hint.) For a difference pressupposes a demarcation. So justify the demacation? (or is it "langauge games")

1. All of my past trolling aside, don't treat me like I'm stupid.

2. See Godel below for the argument.

Reduce to nihilism and Godel.

The Fool: You can just appeal to authority what is his argument(HInt Godel is caught up in "language games")

1. I'll debate you on nihilism anytime, anywhere.

2. If you don't know Godel's argument you can't say he's "caught up in 'language games'."

3. Godel's incompleteness theorems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In any axiomatic system, there is a limit to what can be proved within the confines of that system. Godel, as a mathematician, first brought this conclusion to light with respect to systems like Russell/Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, which was supposed to A) be both complete and consistent, and B) immune to self-referential obstacles (like the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" paradox, which is responsible, in part, for motivating Russell to push through with the project). In addition to describing relations between certain types of numbers, however, the same criticism applies to relations of ideas in the confines of the axioms that we accept in formal logic (e.g., identity, non-contradiction). A corollary to that, however, is that axiomatic systems cannot demonstrate their own consistency. Informally + example, this results in things like the inability of logic to do self-referential proofs. One cannot "prove" that logic holds, in other words.

So, for any axiomatic system S, the "provability" of S is reliant on some exterior system or axiom, S'. But then, through recursion, the same can be said of S' and S', S'/S', etc, leading to an infinite chain of reference.

Then, consider statements like "This statement cannot be proven by formal logic." Self-referentially, a requirement for this statement to be true is its non-provability. In other words: if one can prove it, it cannot be true. If it is true, then one can never conclusively prove it. There is therefore an essential division between the set of all true things and the set of all provable things that can't ever really be bridged. We just have to start with certain assumptions, e.g., law of identity + principle of the uniformity of nature, to get anywhere useful.

At the limits, there's always something we "know"/feel to be true, but have no way of proving. So, in cases like the law of identity, we just take it as "self-evident"

The Fool: so we are trying to get a better explanation then faith. That is why not God?

I dunno. Turns out, we're not only barred from knowing about God's existence--we're also barred from knowing anything about that entity's properties/nature/whatever else. So, it's not that faith is irrational--it doesn't even make sense to have that discussion because of the faith in God's existence being an axiom, therefore, prior to the distinction between what's rational and what's not. I mean, it's not as if philosophical theologians were trying to troll future generations with bad reasoning--they just start from the assumption that God exists, and work their way down.

since we can't even conceive of things operating in any other way.

The Fool: something in that, but as it stands its and appeal to ignorance.

That objection doesn't apply to me, because I'm not really advancing a formal conclusion. I'm not saying "we don't know/can't conceive of whatever, therefore, God." I'm just saying "We don't know, we can't know, so stop trying to pretend that science is a fortress of capital-K Knowledge." :P All I'm advocating is that we always engage in study, even if we avoid conclusions.

Turns out, though, we made a good choice investing in science, because it has a better track record, and it's produced some pretty cool innovations.

The Fool: but even that is based of scientific inferences.

Guess so.

Secondly, For what is the other world which is the BASE sample so that we can compare, and thus conclude we wouldnt have benfited other wise?

Turns out, that applies to everything. How can you say that it was better to have typed this post than to have just sat around and masturbated all day? How can you say that you'll be happier with a cheeseburger than with a steak? You can't, because you can't be rigorous when talking about possible worlds. You can make predictions, but you can't say "I know I would be happier if I had X job" or something--you don't know, and never can.

Religion has stagnated and produced almost nothing useful (inb4 "obscure example you don't know about") since the days when it used to fund exploration and laboratories and stuff (i.e. funding science).

Just gotta accept infinite meta-levels of not knowing stuff and impossible self-reference (e.g., logic proving itself).

The Fool: does it really makes sense to make a conclusive claim of infinite, is infinite something or it is a lack of. For I may just as well say there are not points on a line imparticular. Is it not a negative definition aka NOT-finite.

It doesn't make sense to make a conclusive claim. The point is, there's never any certainty to anything. But, recursion--you can't even have certainty about having no certainty. But this extends through an infinite chain which can itself be abstracted and included in a new chain of uncertainty. Chains of uncertainty made of chains of uncertainty, wrapped in uncertainty, branded by more uncertainty, etc. It gets so out of hand. It's like...

Let P be any proposition; let UCP be uncertainty about a proposition. Then...

P
UCP
UC(UCP)
UC(UC(UCP))
UC(UC...(UC(UCP)
ad infinitum
UC(ad infinitum(UC...UC(UCP))

It's a problem friends and I have (tongue-in-cheek) called fractal hydratic problematicity, which is what occurs when, while trying to solve a problem, every attempt to solve some or all of the problem results in the emergence of multiple new equally-or-more-complicated problems. Like cutting off the heads of a hydra, or trying to zoom to the "end" of a fractal. That's what happens when you invoke nihilism. But I don't even really know that. :P

The Fool: Proof what is proof? (hints)

Reference to an exteriority, dawg. That's how justification works.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 6:05:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/11/2012 6:00:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The presuppositional problem of science precludes it being the only avenue to knowledge.

The regressive problem of everything ever precludes anything being an avenue to knowledge.

Unless you're a theist ;-)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 6:06:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/11/2012 6:05:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/11/2012 6:00:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The presuppositional problem of science precludes it being the only avenue to knowledge.

The regressive problem of everything ever precludes anything being an avenue to knowledge.

Unless you're a theist ;-)

Nah, then you have faith. That's above rationality and irrationality. You don't actually have knowledge of anything. You commit to the truth of "God exists" without provability. I'm not attacking that notion, because that's how everything works, but I will fight to the end of the earth the notion that we can "know" whether God exists, much less what God is actually like.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:22:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/11/2012 12:18:34 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:39:55 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/11/2012 10:37:05 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: it should, some people claim that Hume quantim mechanics is indication of exactly that what he said. (its nonsense)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a reference?

http://www.quantumdiaries.org...

Good lord that's one of the worst interpretations of Hume, not mention causality, that I've seen as an actual attempted reference.

The Fool: Is that necessary? Who pooped in you cornflakes? Do you really need someone else to tell you the relation? did you read the thread?

Someone one when ask I googled, quantum and hume there is lots of literature on this. I that this was a common enough.

I am not against science. Its for fun. I am playing the devils advacate, I am just seeing how much better of an argument people can come up with that in relation to a faith argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL