Is science being divided?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Science will become:

Divided
1
50%
Physicalism
0
No votes
A matter of "information"
1
50%
 
Total votes: 2

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:39 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:24 pm A good muslim/christian/whatever would simply admit it and move on.
Ok.

I previously wrote: Proof and evidence are synonymous. And vegetariantaxidermy disagreed with me. So the following statements are now being made by myself:

1. According to the gut feeling of poster vegetariantaxidermy who is not a linguist, I am wrong for saying that proof is synonymous with evidence.

2. According to the expertise of the English language scholars of the Oxford dictionaries and the Thesaurus, I am correct for saying that proof and evidence are synonymous.
References: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

I am a good Muslim now and we can all move on.
Born again twit. Why don't you find some god-bothering site to post your 'answersingenesis' science-denying crap on? It's just a huge bore now.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by A_Seagull »

Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:40 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:20 am
Averroes wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:41 pm

Ok. So by your process you can infer my existence without ever having had any experience of me?
The data I have that relates to 'you' IS my experience of 'you'. I have put 'you' in inverted commas to indicate that the word may not relate to you as a person but only to my experience of what you may or may not be.
Ok. So you say this: “The data I have that relates to ‘you’ IS my experience of ‘you’”. So if the data that you have is to relate to your experience of this “you” (i.e. me), then this ‘you’ (i.e. me) has to be independent of this data for you, otherwise there would be no relation between them. In other words this ‘you’ is not the data, but is related to the data. Correct?
The 'you' is a theory related to the data.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:01 am This is what happens when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of English (and the example in question isn't even particularly subtle or difficult).
Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof.
As I said previously, it is not merely a discussion about the English language particularly, but it is more broadly a philosophical discussion about language in general. Of course I understood already what you and others were saying. But you are not getting what I am saying. Here I could have said: “This is what happens when someone does not understand the subtleties of a philosophical discussion.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein said in Philosophical Investigation that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” So for the same word, different people might use a word differently. Who is right then? Are you going to label everyone who does not share your meaning of an English word as an idiot or stupid? This kind of bigoted attitude is not useful in philosophy. Moreover, it is a very counter productive attitude to have in the English speaking world itself because there many kinds of English: American, British, Australian etc… And for each of those broad classes there are differences in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and grammar. So what are you going to do when hundreds of millions of people do not share your meaning of a word? Are you going to label them all as stupid? This is not wise at all. In philosophy instead of ad hominens, philosophers reply with a logical argument. The latter has a more effective and lasting effect than an ad hominen. For example you made the following statement:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
  • Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof
That statement captures the meaning that you attach to the word “proof.” It is your understanding of this word. It is fine as long as you can make yourself understood in your community. But not everyone need to have that same definition for the word “proof.” For example, you said: “You can’t have ‘weak proof’, or ‘strong/compelling proof’”. Many people would disagree with you. For example David Hume would disagree with you! In an Inquiry concerning Human understanding he wrote:

Hume wrote:
  • But in order to encrease the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose, that the fact, which they affirm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antagonist. [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Part 1, 10.11]
Here clearly Hume was considering that one proof can be stronger than another. Moreover, on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a philosophy professor commenting on this passage of Hume endorses unambiguously that there are weaker and stronger proofs, going directly against your definition.

C. M. Lorkowsky:
  • However, there are stronger and weaker proofs—consider a professor showing up for class every day versus the sun rising every day—and only the strongest proofs, those supporting our beliefs in the laws of nature, have been attested to “in all countries and all ages.”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/

What are you going to do now? Are you going to say that Hume was an idiot or stupid? Well, for other reasons there might be some truth in that, it is up to you! :-)
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:19 am It's just a huge bore now.
Alright. I understand. We have been exchanging for about four days now and it is normal to feel saturated. Philosophy is an intellectually demanding subject. Let us conclude this exchange here. It was interesting to have exchanged with you. I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:22 am The 'you' is a theory related to the data.
Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot »

Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
uwot wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:28 amWhich one are you claiming is the scientific method?
Both. They are different models of the scientific method and in both models experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor.
If "experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor", then any experience and observation becomes 'science', and any 'method' is irrelevant.
Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmIn the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced...
You can look at rock strata yourself. In some layers you will find fossils of sponges. Above that are trilobites. Above that are dinosaurs. You can go and do that elsewhere on the planet and find the same pattern. You can infer that you would find the same pattern wherever you go; that is induction.
Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm...and in the falsification model Darwinism is not a testable/falsifiable hypothesis.
If you can find dinosaurs at the bottom and sponges at the top, job done.
Averroes wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:39 pm...if you were now to maintain spontaneous generation, then it destroys completely the evolution project! For suppose now you say that the first species were the result of spontaneous generation.
You don't understand the issue. I have already said that I have no idea how life originated. Darwin's theory of evolution does not pretend to explain the origin of life, the title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species. If you do not accept that creatures evolve into different species, you are committed to some alternative explanation for the diversity of flora and fauna; for instance that some supernatural being created them all from scratch, but from essentially the same components. It is conceivable, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. You also have to give some alternative explanation for the fossil record. Why are sponges at the bottom and dinosaurs at the top?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot »

Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:39 pmI previously wrote: Proof and evidence are synonymous.
Have you looked up what synonymous means? From what you say, you appear to think it means 'exactly the same as', which it doesn't.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by A_Seagull »

Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:22 am The 'you' is a theory related to the data.
Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
Causality has got nothing to do with it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:56 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:19 am It's just a huge bore now.
Alright. I understand. We have been exchanging for about four days now and it is normal to feel saturated. Philosophy is an intellectually demanding subject. Let us conclude this exchange here. It was interesting to have exchanged with you. I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
Perhaps you should define 'philosophy' then because I haven't seen any actual 'thinking' from you--only smarminess and proselytising.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:55 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:01 am This is what happens when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of English (and the example in question isn't even particularly subtle or difficult).
Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof.
As I said previously, it is not merely a discussion about the English language particularly, but it is more broadly a philosophical discussion about language in general. Of course I understood already what you and others were saying. But you are not getting what I am saying. Here I could have said: “This is what happens when someone does not understand the subtleties of a philosophical discussion.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein said in Philosophical Investigation that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” So for the same word, different people might use a word differently. Who is right then? Are you going to label everyone who does not share your meaning of an English word as an idiot or stupid? This kind of bigoted attitude is not useful in philosophy. Moreover, it is a very counter productive attitude to have in the English speaking world itself because there many kinds of English: American, British, Australian etc… And for each of those broad classes there are differences in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and grammar. So what are you going to do when hundreds of millions of people do not share your meaning of a word? Are you going to label them all as stupid? This is not wise at all. In philosophy instead of ad hominens, philosophers reply with a logical argument. The latter has a more effective and lasting effect than an ad hominen. For example you made the following statement:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
  • Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof
That statement captures the meaning that you attach to the word “proof.” It is your understanding of this word. It is fine as long as you can make yourself understood in your community. But not everyone need to have that same definition for the word “proof.” For example, you said: “You can’t have ‘weak proof’, or ‘strong/compelling proof’”. Many people would disagree with you. For example David Hume would disagree with you! In an Inquiry concerning Human understanding he wrote:

Hume wrote:
  • But in order to encrease the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose, that the fact, which they affirm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antagonist. [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Part 1, 10.11]
Here clearly Hume was considering that one proof can be stronger than another. Moreover, on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a philosophy professor commenting on this passage of Hume endorses unambiguously that there are weaker and stronger proofs, going directly against your definition.

C. M. Lorkowsky:
  • However, there are stronger and weaker proofs—consider a professor showing up for class every day versus the sun rising every day—and only the strongest proofs, those supporting our beliefs in the laws of nature, have been attested to “in all countries and all ages.”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/

What are you going to do now? Are you going to say that Hume was an idiot or stupid? Well, for other reasons there might be some truth in that, it is up to you! :-)
Why would I care what Hume says about it? And I don't know who the hell C M Lorkowsky is. He sounds like an idiot (probably American). Are you completely unable to think for yourself?
You can't just change the meaning of a word to suit yourself. What word are you going to replace it with? You are obviously a very petty little man who can't stand to admit when he's wrong--not the intellectual giant you seem to imagine yourself to be :roll:
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

uwot wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
uwot wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:28 amWhich one are you claiming is the scientific method?
Both. They are different models of the scientific method and in both models experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor.
If "experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor", then any experience and observation becomes 'science', and any 'method' is irrelevant.
Indeed, experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation. You have to make a statement known as a hypothesis. That statement has to be backed and not contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world to then form part of the scientific knowledge. Suppose we have the hypothesis: the speed of light is 300 000 000m/s. We are going to take as observations the actual measurements of the speed of light. We are not going to admit as observation the measurement of the speed of a car on the highway. The latter would be irrelevant to our hypothesis. Proposition of science are often universal propositions. But singular statements too can be scientific. For example, when we are testing a hypothesis, often we make several individual observations and each observation is often called a scientific measurement/data.


uwot wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmIn the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced...
You can look at rock strata yourself. In some layers you will find fossils of sponges. Above that are trilobites. Above that are dinosaurs. You can go and do that elsewhere on the planet and find the same pattern. You can infer that you would find the same pattern wherever you go; that is induction.
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another. These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another. For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another, and then from these observations you might induce the claims of Darwinism, but it has never been observed that one species became another. So you cannot claim induction for Darwinism from fossilized remains. Let me give the famous example for how induction works. Suppose all swans that you have ever seen were white, and of no other color. From these observations you might induce the statement: All swans are white, In induction one generalizes over the observations made and not over observations not made.


uwot wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm...and in the falsification model Darwinism is not a testable/falsifiable hypothesis.
If you can find dinosaurs at the bottom and sponges at the top, job done.
It does not work like that. Popper’s falsification method is a bit more elaborate. In a nutshell, as far as I can remember, under Popper’s method, for a hypothesis to amount to be called scientific, it has to fulfill four conditions: being synthetic, consistent, testable and another one that I forgot. Popper said of Darwinism that it is tautological, i.e. it says: “the survivor survives.” (his own example). So Darwinism under Popper is not even a scientific theory. But in any case, even if it were synthetic and not tautological, you would still have to design experiments to show one species becoming another. And so far all experiments conducted with fruit flies and bacteria to prove Darwinism have failed, No species were ever observed to have become another. What happened in fact is that when conditions got too harsh, the species just died and did not evolved.

From these replies that you have given, I have a strong impression that you did not practice the scientific method much before because this is very basic knowledge in science. Anyway, I hope you understand these basic principles I have explained.


uwot wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm If you do not accept that creatures evolve into different species, you are committed to some alternative explanation for the diversity of flora and fauna; for instance that some supernatural being created them all from scratch, but from essentially the same components. It is conceivable, but there is no evidence to support such a claim.
What matters in science is the empirical observations that corroborates a scientific hypothesis. If someone were to produce empirical evidence of one species becoming another, then I will have no choice but to accept it. But of course someone has the right to believe that one species can become another but that belief is not scientific according to the widely accepted definition of the word scientific.


uwot wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm You also have to give some alternative explanation for the fossil record. Why are sponges at the bottom and dinosaurs at the top?
Respectfully, why must I give an explanation for the fossil record when you cannot give an explanation for how life originated? Why this double standards?
As I said already, as long as you cannot explain how life originated in your conceptual scientific framework, Darwinism will remain an incoherent theory, and hence not science according to your own definition of that term. I can go through that again if need be and explain it in more detail if you still have trouble understanding what was previously written on that.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:22 am The 'you' is a theory related to the data.
Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
Causality has got nothing to do with it.
Thank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

The fool is confusing Darwinism with the origin of life. What a surprise. At least he has shown us that Australians are nearly as stupid as Americans (and rapidly catching up).
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by A_Seagull »

Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:05 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Averroes wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pm

Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
Causality has got nothing to do with it.
Thank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?
Yes and I am not answering any more questions. You were supposed to be telling me your theory for how you came to exist ...
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT »

A_Seagull wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:39 pm Yes and I am not answering any more questions. You were supposed to be telling me your theory for how you came to exist ...
I can tell you his answer: Because Allah wanted it! :roll:
Post Reply