ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th August 2019, 02:57 AM   #321
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Such a broad concept of science can lead to quite a lot of confusion. That's why I specified that I was referring to scientific evidence (Joe says there is no other). I will specify more: I refer to the one that is obtained through controlled observation (test) and mathematically formalized quantification. It is the one taught in universities and published in scientific journals.
So, again, your argument is that you don't understand what the scientific method is, so you just make up some bullcrap instead?

Because if you look at the actual definition of it, guess what? There is no condition for any of that extra moving the goalposts that you're doing.

In fact, what makes your redefinition outright retarded is that it would outright exclude any physics or chemistry experiment done in a school or even uníversity lab, for teaching purposes, as not science. Because nobody publishes what Timmy from class B measured in class.

At any rate, all you have is another of your arguments that ah, but word X would be confusing or have some other connotations -- even if you have to make them up. Guess what, silly? I don't give a flip. If words confuse you, that's between you and your special needs school teacher
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 02:58 AM   #322
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
On two types of knowledge that are not evidence I advise looking for Analytic/Synthetic or intuitive knowledge tags.

Two examples: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com...96577-0044.xml

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/i...knowledge).htm
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 03:40 AM   #323
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

In fact, what makes your redefinition outright retarded is that it would outright exclude any physics or chemistry experiment done in a school or even uníversity lab, for teaching purposes, as not science. Because nobody publishes what Timmy from class B measured in class.
I'm not saying that a research isn't scientific if it hasn't been published. Or that there can't be a non-scientific article that has slipped into a scientific journal. I say that the kind of scientific knowledge, characterized by controlled observation and mathematical form, is that which is published in scientific journals.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 05:57 AM   #324
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
That's still your own moving the goalposts. It's no different from the guys insisting that there's a 9/11 conspiracy because the evidence doesn't fit their arbitrary criteria.

For a start, you haven't shown why my looking at a streetlight isn't controlled enough.

Controlled:

A) means within the best you can do. And

B) still gets the job done.

Everything could be a little more controlled, even at the Large Hadron Collider. But that's why you have an error bar for.

And B is actually the more important one. If I'm doing an interference experiment with lasers, then the exact wavelength matters, and isolating other light sources is important. If I'm an anthropologist studying how much more or less Germans are to not cross the street on a red light than the French, then I don't need the exact wavelength of the LED in their red light. It's enough that it's roughly speaking red and it's at the top of the streetlight.

Trying to impose an arbitrary one-size fits all standard is counterproductive and misguided.

Putting it into numbers, same deal. I'm probably one of the people who used maths the most in threads in this forum -- even for such biblical stuff as what energy would be released by the Borg cube in Revelation landing -- but not everything has to be in numbers and formulas. And most certainly not to be evidence.

The most trivial example is archaeology. Yes, the current historical method is for all practical reasons a variant of the scientific method, and there is no such thing as a theoretical archaeologist. Yet numbers are at best of marginal relevance, don't have to be exact, and formulas are non-existent. If you find 100 skeletons and 70 bronze weapons in a river, vs if you find 90 and 80, it makes no difference to the fact that there probably was a battle there.

Anthropology is another easy example.

But even in hard sciences like physics, sometimes the prediction or falsification thereof is simply at the level of whether something happens or not. The first validation of Einstein's GR was simply at the level of whether gravitational lensing produced the pattern he predicted or not.

So again, trying to impose some arbitrary one-size-fits-all standard is just plain bogus.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 10th August 2019 at 06:02 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 06:53 AM   #325
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That's still your own moving the goalposts. It's no different from the guys insisting that there's a 9/11 conspiracy because the evidence doesn't fit their arbitrary criteria.

For a start, you haven't shown why my looking at a streetlight isn't controlled enough.

Controlled:

A) means within the best you can do. And

B) still gets the job done.

Everything could be a little more controlled, even at the Large Hadron Collider. But that's why you have an error bar for.

And B is actually the more important one. If I'm doing an interference experiment with lasers, then the exact wavelength matters, and isolating other light sources is important. If I'm an anthropologist studying how much more or less Germans are to not cross the street on a red light than the French, then I don't need the exact wavelength of the LED in their red light. It's enough that it's roughly speaking red and it's at the top of the streetlight.

Trying to impose an arbitrary one-size fits all standard is counterproductive and misguided.

Putting it into numbers, same deal. I'm probably one of the people who used maths the most in threads in this forum -- even for such biblical stuff as what energy would be released by the Borg cube in Revelation landing -- but not everything has to be in numbers and formulas. And most certainly not to be evidence.

The most trivial example is archaeology. Yes, the current historical method is for all practical reasons a variant of the scientific method, and there is no such thing as a theoretical archaeologist. Yet numbers are at best of marginal relevance, don't have to be exact, and formulas are non-existent. If you find 100 skeletons and 70 bronze weapons in a river, vs if you find 90 and 80, it makes no difference to the fact that there probably was a battle there.

Anthropology is another easy example.

But even in hard sciences like physics, sometimes the prediction or falsification thereof is simply at the level of whether something happens or not. The first validation of Einstein's GR was simply at the level of whether gravitational lensing produced the pattern he predicted or not.

So again, trying to impose some arbitrary one-size-fits-all standard is just plain bogus.
Archaeology and anthropology are human sciences. They still have a long way to go to get full scientific evidence. Especially anthropology.

Controlled experimentation, the basis of the factual sciences, is not a game. It requires strict conditions of control and manipulation of the variables, which did not occur in any of the cases I proposed.

On the other hand, I am not saying that the lack of scientific evidence in our daily lives means that everything is the same and that any pseudoscience is worth. I am saying that our knowledge of facts is based on the authority of science. But not that it is irrational. It is rational to trust scientists to the extent that they express a consensus. But it is still the principle of authority.

Here is a summary of controlled experimentation. I find it useful: https://www.visionlearning.com/en/li...c-Research/150

By the way, the Einstein case you comment on is a classic of controlled experimentation/observation: Such a theory in such circumstances will produce X. X happens, then the theory is confirmed or progresses toward its confirmation.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th August 2019 at 07:01 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 06:56 AM   #326
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Controlled:

A) means within the best you can do. And

B) still gets the job done.
Nitpick: Controlled means that the observer or experimenter gets to keep things constant while changing or observing the thing they wish to understand or figure out the effects of. It does not mean "within the best you can do". The word control has a meaning in this context.

I'm not sure where David Mo is going with this anyway. To say that he doesn't have evidence of his wife loving him because we were talking about scientific evidence and scientific evidence (according to him), which must include things like "mathematically formalized quantification" (a weirdly specific precondition to discussing whether or not there's evidence his wife loves him), seems to me that he's now arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't see his overall point.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 07:09 AM   #327
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Nitpick: Controlled means that the observer or experimenter gets to keep things constant while changing or observing the thing they wish to understand or figure out the effects of. It does not mean "within the best you can do". The word control has a meaning in this context.



I'm not sure where David Mo is going with this anyway. To say that he doesn't have evidence of his wife loving him because we were talking about scientific evidence and scientific evidence (according to him), which must include things like "mathematically formalized quantification" (a weirdly specific precondition to discussing whether or not there's evidence his wife loves him), seems to me that he's now arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't see his overall point.
He has a rather peculiar definition of science and what he will accept as science. For example because no one has a science paper published that is titled "zeus does not exist" science has nothing to say about Zeus's existence or none existence.

He is rather like a biblical literalist .
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 10th August 2019 at 07:10 AM. Reason: Words
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 07:37 AM   #328
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
This whole "Science doesn't has an opinion on X" stuff consistently comes out of people who define science wrongly.

Again if the exact terms bother (g)you fine, at the most basic, intellectual level if a fact is presented or an opinion is reached that didn't use concepts like collecting evidence under a certain set of standards, falsefiability, experimentation, and so forth not only is the fact/opinion not valid the question/problem the fact/opinion is presented as an answer to isn't valid in its current form.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 08:45 AM   #329
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Nitpick: Controlled means that the observer or experimenter gets to keep things constant while changing or observing the thing they wish to understand or figure out the effects of. It does not mean "within the best you can do". The word control has a meaning in this context.
Right. My poor choice of words. What I meant that when we say something is controlled, we mean controlled to the best that we can, not PERFECTLY controlled.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 09:16 AM   #330
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
As JesseCuster said, scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 11:23 AM   #331
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
And what I'm saying is simply that "minimize" means just that: reduce as best as we can. It doesn't mean reduce to zero. And what counts as controlled enough is different for each experiment, rather than being a one-size-fits-all standard.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 10th August 2019 at 11:24 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 11:15 PM   #332
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post

I'm not sure where David Mo is going with this anyway. To say that he doesn't have evidence of his wife loving him because we were talking about scientific evidence and scientific evidence (according to him), which must include things like "mathematically formalized quantification" (a weirdly specific precondition to discussing whether or not there's evidence his wife loves him), seems to me that he's now arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't see his overall point.
I'm interested in the philosophy of science.
A classic problem of the philosophy of science is scientism. Scientific reductionism (scientism) affirms that science is the only way to know and that everything can be explained scientifically, including the rules for action.

This is idolatry. I have used my wife's hypothesis as an example. An example of a joke that illustrated my point of view. I am sorry that this caused your confusion. You can overlook it if you want. There were other more serious examples.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 11:23 PM   #333
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
He has a rather peculiar definition of science and what he will accept as science. For example because no one has a science paper published that is titled "zeus does not exist" science has nothing to say about Zeus's existence or none existence.
By Zeus! I haven't defined science as things published in a scientific magazine. Please, please, please. I just said that the safest way to know if science has studied a particular problem is to consult the scientific literature. It's not that hard to understand. I don't know what's wrong with you.

No. I'm not a biblical literalist. This is absurd. I have wasted my time explaining to you that the debate with religious people is not limited to literalism.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 11:25 PM   #334
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This whole "Science doesn't has an opinion on X" stuff consistently comes out of people who define science wrongly.

Again if the exact terms bother (g)you fine, at the most basic, intellectual level if a fact is presented or an opinion is reached that didn't use concepts like collecting evidence under a certain set of standards, falsefiability, experimentation, and so forth not only is the fact/opinion not valid the question/problem the fact/opinion is presented as an answer to isn't valid in its current form.
Are you talking to me?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 11:29 PM   #335
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And what I'm saying is simply that "minimize" means just that: reduce as best as we can. It doesn't mean reduce to zero. And what counts as controlled enough is different for each experiment, rather than being a one-size-fits-all standard.
No one claims that the uncertainty of controlled experimentation can be reduced to zero. No matter how close it sometimes gets. And the fact that the ways of controlling are different does not detract from the definition of controlled experimentation and the fact it is one of the main requirements of science. Especially those of nature.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th August 2019 at 11:39 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 04:36 AM   #336
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
By Zeus! I haven't defined science as things published in a scientific magazine. Please, please, please. I just said that the safest way to know if science has studied a particular problem is to consult the scientific literature. It's not that hard to understand. I don't know what's wrong with you.



No. I'm not a biblical literalist. This is absurd. I have wasted my time explaining to you that the debate with religious people is not limited to literalism.
"Rather like"
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 05:16 AM   #337
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
By Zeus! I haven't defined science as things published in a scientific magazine. Please, please, please. I just said that the safest way to know if science has studied a particular problem is to consult the scientific literature. It's not that hard to understand. I don't know what's wrong with you.



No. I'm not a biblical literalist. This is absurd. I have wasted my time explaining to you that the debate with religious people is not limited to literalism.
And you are fibbing again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12475507

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post12475510


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post12475518
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 07:11 AM   #338
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No one claims that the uncertainty of controlled experimentation can be reduced to zero. No matter how close it sometimes gets.
Good. Then I trust you'll agree that when I deduce things like how far my car can drive when the fuel gauge says it's empty, or make predictions based on that, such as that I don't need to stop at a gas station tomorrow on my way to work, the conditions are controlled enough. It's the same car, with the same engine and mass and aerodynamics, on the same stretch of road I'm making the observation on, the same average speed, etc.

So remind me again, why that's totally exempt from the scientific method for you?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And the fact that the ways of controlling are different does not detract from the definition of controlled experimentation and the fact it is one of the main requirements of science. Especially those of nature.
No, that's still just you making things up. You need to control only in as much as it affects the results and, again, in as much as you reasonably CAN. If something doesn't throw the error bar much, or you're ok with the error margin, or you really can't control it, you don't HAVE TO.

E.g., if I measure gravity by throwing a lead ball off the roof, I literally have to control for NOTHING more than the height of the roof. Which is "controlled" only in as much as it's a given for this house.

And there are whole domains even in natural sciences, and indeed "hard sciences" where you can't really control anything other than your detector most of the time. E.g., astrophysics. You don't control when a star goes supernova. You don't control when two black holes collide. You don't control how far away it happens, either. Nor what the conditions may be in the signal's path. (E.g., whether it will get gravity-lensed on the way here.) You just set up your detector and hope to catch some signal. Then you do your best to deal with whatever unforeseen variables happened to be present.

You're mistaking something that is nice to have, for some requirement. Actually, no, you're just redefining the goalposts as you go, as suits your nonsense argument.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th August 2019 at 07:27 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 07:26 AM   #339
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is idolatry. I have used my wife's hypothesis as an example. An example of a joke that illustrated my point of view. I am sorry that this caused your confusion. You can overlook it if you want. There were other more serious examples.
You made a terrible analogy and were called on it by several people. You're not doing yourself any favours by suddenly pulling out the passive aggressive "it was just a joke, it's not my fault you didn't get it" defense.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 10:32 AM   #340
Scorpion
Graduate Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,853
For Dave Rogers and Ian S

The following web site states that atoms are largely empty space, and its not the only page that says that.


https://education.jlab.org/qa/how-mu...pty-space.html

A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. Put another way, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the earth, the proton at its center would be about 200 meters (600 feet) across. While I wouldn't want something that big landing on my head, it's tiny compared to the size of the earth

Why does matter feel solid when atoms are largely empty space.

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-atoms-space-solid.html


https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-81786,00.html

I am not the only one who still thinks of atoms as miniature solar systems which are largely empty, there are plenty of sites which state this.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy

Last edited by Scorpion; 11th August 2019 at 10:57 AM.
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 11:02 AM   #341
Scorpion
Graduate Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,853
A more developed view of atoms which still ends up saying atoms could be considered empty

https://www.quora.com/It-is-said-tha...ce-in-the-atom
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy

Last edited by Scorpion; 11th August 2019 at 11:03 AM.
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 12:37 PM   #342
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
For Dave Rogers and Ian S

The following web site states that atoms are largely empty space, and its not the only page that says that.


https://education.jlab.org/qa/how-mu...pty-space.html

A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. Put another way, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the earth, the proton at its center would be about 200 meters (600 feet) across. While I wouldn't want something that big landing on my head, it's tiny compared to the size of the earth

Why does matter feel solid when atoms are largely empty space.

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-atoms-space-solid.html


https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-81786,00.html


I am not the only one who still thinks of atoms as miniature solar systems which are largely empty, there are plenty of sites which state this.


OK, I am not going to waste my time reading any old links that you cut-&-paste here, but I read the highlighted one (because it's title makes it sound as if it comes from a respectable site) … please quote where in the text/article from that link it says that atoms are filled with “empty” space? ... well just to save you misunderstanding it again - your link specifically does not say any such thing.

Your second link appears to be just some posts from readers of a newspaper!



Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
A more developed view of atoms which still ends up saying atoms could be considered empty

https://www.quora.com/It-is-said-tha...ce-in-the-atom

You need to read that link again. It does not say the atoms are filled with “empty space” … in fact it specifically tells you the opposite!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 12:43 PM   #343
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, more like, for almost everyone almost all the time, it doesn't MATTER if it's really flat or a sphere of such great radius that the local curvature is too small to observe.
More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth, and you have no argument for why they should.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 01:23 PM   #344
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth
Isn't that exactly the same thing I've been saying, namely that for them it doesn't matter? Exactly what fine distinction are you seeing there?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
and you have no argument for why they should.
Which should be just as well, considering that I was certainly not trying to give them one?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 05:42 PM   #345
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,839
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I'm interested in the philosophy of science.
A classic problem of the philosophy of science is scientism. Scientific reductionism (scientism) affirms that science is the only way to know and that everything can be explained scientifically, including the rules for action.

This is idolatry. I have used my wife's hypothesis as an example. An example of a joke that illustrated my point of view. I am sorry that this caused your confusion. You can overlook it if you want. There were other more serious examples.
And I think this is a giant pile of feces. I don't think science is the only way to know something, but science has proven itself 99 percent of the time to be the best way. It's not idolatry to want to understand what is true accurately.

Science doesn't make proclamations, it is merely a method to improve our knowledge. But David acts as if there isn't evidence of feelings that his wife and him act upon. If his wife suddenly stopped saying I love you or stopped being affectionate, you think David might start questioning her feelings?

What I can't stand is him preaching that there may be better ways to know something than science. Let me just say this about that.

I haven't heard it.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 11:15 PM   #346
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I appreciate you looking through my old comments. Unfortunately they are not well selected and do not reflect my position. I have made a better selection from my point of view.
Thread: "Hawkins says there are not gods" Comments: 286-289-290-291-293-305-308


Quote:
Science: The human knowledge based on the experimental method, also known as "hypothetical-deductive". I am not speaking of formal sciences now.


I have not ever seen any scientific experiment that shows that they are wrong. I have philosophical reasons to think they are wrong. Dawkins has philosophical reasons, Russell had philosophical reasons; Sam Harris has philosophical reasons... Perhaps you know an article that shows that God doesn't exist published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It would be a great surprise.


And the best way to know if a question is scientific is to go to the science departments of the universities and consult scientific journals.

What scientific department is charged to? In what scientific journal are published the results of the scientific refutation of gods? HOw can be scientific a problem that is not scientifically studied?

I can show thousand of scientific journals about extinct species. In what scientific journal is published those "thousand years of evidence" about god? A specific answer, please.
I think it is clear.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 11:49 PM   #347
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Good. Then I trust you'll agree that when I deduce things like how far my car can drive when the fuel gauge says it's empty, or make predictions based on that, such as that I don't need to stop at a gas station tomorrow on my way to work, the conditions are controlled enough. It's the same car, with the same engine and mass and aerodynamics, on the same stretch of road I'm making the observation on, the same average speed, etc.

So remind me again, why that's totally exempt from the scientific method for you?



No, that's still just you making things up. You need to control only in as much as it affects the results and, again, in as much as you reasonably CAN. If something doesn't throw the error bar much, or you're ok with the error margin, or you really can't control it, you don't HAVE TO.

E.g., if I measure gravity by throwing a lead ball off the roof, I literally have to control for NOTHING more than the height of the roof. Which is "controlled" only in as much as it's a given for this house.

And there are whole domains even in natural sciences, and indeed "hard sciences" where you can't really control anything other than your detector most of the time. E.g., astrophysics. You don't control when a star goes supernova. You don't control when two black holes collide. You don't control how far away it happens, either. Nor what the conditions may be in the signal's path. (E.g., whether it will get gravity-lensed on the way here.) You just set up your detector and hope to catch some signal. Then you do your best to deal with whatever unforeseen variables happened to be present.
I had foreseen the astronomy objection. Therefore I wrote in a previous comment:
"By the way, the Einstein case you comment on is a classic of controlled experimentation/observation".

In astronomy and some branches of biology experimentation is not possible or convenient. It is replaced by controlled observation: comparison between similar events or repetition of the same event. What matters is that variables are controlled. Example: Tycho Brahe didn't control a basic variable: the distance to fixed stars from Earth. Therefore his alternative to heliocentrism failed.

This difference was irrelevant in the cases I proposed. No control of the variables was present. No quantification of measurements. Etc. Note that in one o f them the variable control was not even needed.

I suggest you to see that in order to know what we are speaking of:
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/scien...ir/variables?f

In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.
If you want to do science in the kitchen you can control "enough" your variables. But the result will be "enough" defective. This is what we could call "indication" or "circumstantial evidence" (in justice courts). They are not proofs.
Of course, in our ordinary life we usually act by circumstantial evidence, intuition and "logic". Among other things that are not science. But are also knowledge. This is my point.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 11:54 PM   #348
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
You made a terrible analogy and were called on it by several people. You're not doing yourself any favours by suddenly pulling out the passive aggressive "it was just a joke, it's not my fault you didn't get it" defense.
Reductionism, positivism and scientism are not science, they are philosophy. When they are dogmatically maintained, as if they were self-evident, they become idolatry or religion. But that is not an attack against science, but against its worshippers.
If you think the comparison is terrible, I think the reductionism is terrible. It has all the vices of religions.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:09 AM   #349
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And I think this is a giant pile of feces. I don't think science is the only way to know something, but science has proven itself 99 percent of the time to be the best way. It's not idolatry to want to understand what is true accurately.
I didn't say science is idolatry. Reductionism is not science. It is an ideology. I don't know if science is right 99% or 75% of the time -I don't know any article about this- but it's clear that it's the safest way to get the facts straight. In a conflict between science and something else I wouldn't hesitate.

But you were distancing yourself from reductionism. I don't know why you tell me the rest. Specially the dirty part. Beware of feces. You have to pay close attention to where they are and not take a wrong step.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:42 AM   #350
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In astronomy and some branches of biology experimentation is not possible or convenient. It is replaced by controlled observation: comparison between similar events or repetition of the same event. What matters is that variables are controlled. Example: Tycho Brahe didn't control a basic variable: the distance to fixed stars from Earth. Therefore his alternative to heliocentrism failed.
And in my example about learning how far I can drive a car before needing to refuel, I'm using repetition of the same event: driving the same route. So, again, why doesn't that qualify for the scientific method?

I know that spewing generic BS instead of addressing the actual question is easier, but do try to follow.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This difference was irrelevant in the cases I proposed. No control of the variables was present. No quantification of measurements. Etc. Note that in one o f them the variable control was not even needed.
Neither was the claim that it has to be peer-reviewed level evidence in the claim where you brought them up, actually. Your claim was just that you couldn't even go outside if you lived your life based on evidence. Your whole starting to run around with the goalposts about what is rigorous enough for published science wasn't even in that claim at all.

So... Yada, yada, cow goes moo, duck goes quack, and David Mo makes up some BS redefining the topic when he doesn't actually have a point. Which tends to be all the time. What else is new?

But to return to your examples, what you've actually said there is NOT that evidence isn't everything. All you've said there is that you're not bothered to look for evidence in a bunch of cases. Which isn't a limitation of the scientific method, it's just you not doing it. Saying that that's a limitation of the scientific method is like saying that my car must be broken, because I couldn't be bothered to drive it anywhere on the weekend.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control.
[...]
If you want to do science in the kitchen you can control "enough" your variables. But the result will be "enough" defective. This is what we could call "indication" or "circumstantial evidence" (in justice courts). They are not proofs.
Compare with:
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No one claims that the uncertainty of controlled experimentation can be reduced to zero. No matter how close it sometimes gets.
Which one is it, silly? Because either it has to be perfect, or there is in fact a level where it's deemed controlled enough/sufficient. You can't have both.

Bonus points for not understanding that almost all evidence in science is circumstantial for the theory it supports. If it were direct evidence, that one is defined as leaving only one possibility being possible at all. So we could stop trying to falsify it or come up with a better explanation, because by definition it wouldn't be possible to have any other one.

But you're just making up what words mean as you go, as usual, right?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.
Why don't you actually ask one if there is such a thing as controlled enough, instead of making up imaginary students supporting your position?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:56 AM   #351
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,448
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.
That's a bit of a bugger for the medical sciences then. If only they could have come up with some way to account for the impossibility of rigorously controlling all possible variables in a complex biological system, that could do something useful like assigning a level of confidence to their results based on a hypothetical branch of mathematics that dealt with large amounts of uncertain data. But clearly that can only lead to experiments failing, so we can never have such a thing as medical science, and "evidence-based medicine is an oxymoron.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:52 AM   #352
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Reductionism, positivism and scientism are not science, they are philosophy. When they are dogmatically maintained, as if they were self-evident, they become idolatry or religion. But that is not an attack against science, but against its worshippers.
Yet your wife still loves you and you have evidence that this is so. (again, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that your wife does in fact love you)

"Prove to me that love exists" is one of those trite, tiresome arguments that get dragged out on forums from time to time and it never gets any better. You should know better.

Railing against scientism or reductionism or other -isms you don't like isn't going to change that. Nothing I said had anything to do with scientism or reductionism anyway, so there's not much point in directing your objections toward me on those subjects.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:35 AM   #353
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
David's POV does raise one question (not one he's himself explicitly raised) : how rigorous must evidence be, in order for it to be considered scientific? Is there a rule, or is it entirely subjective?

When considering if X's wife loves X, it's wholly subjective. X may consider some woman smiling at him casually to be proof she loves him; or may considering her swearing blood oaths to be insufficient evidence; that is his business, and the rest of us may, at best, intersubjectively disagree with his particular standards.

But when it comes to science, how rigorous is minimally rigorous? I think that might be an interesting question, that actual practitioners of science could answer for the rest of us.

(Your view, Hans, seems to indicate subjectivity, with practicability, with what is feasible, the primary criterion. But perhaps I misunderstand you? At what point does the scientist say, below this threshhold of rigor in evidence, conclusions simply aren't scientific? Is that threshhold entirely suibjective, is my question.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:38 AM   #354
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth, and you have no argument for why they should.

Most people don't think about such things on a daily/regular basis. But there are thousands, if not millions of things things that we have discovered and understood through science, and where people do not think about the scientific explanations, but for which those explanations have very important consequences for almost everything in the daily lives of all those people ...

... they may not ever think about quantum theory or space satellite research, but they probably rely each day on GPS signals. They probably don't think about all sorts of experiments and discoveries that have taken place in medical research over the last 50 to 100 years, but they may have a heart pacemaker fitted, or they may survive because of all sorts of other advances in medical treatment.

The majority may be ignorant of it all. They may even wallow in their ignorance. They may even try to dismiss, dimmish or ridicule science. But their ignorance and wilful stupidity does not change the fact they are all (all of them) almost certainly benefiting hugely from science all day every day.

I'm not sure you could say they are benefiting in any such way, or to any similar extent, from philosophy though.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:46 AM   #355
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
When considering if X's wife loves X, it's wholly subjective.
[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:51 AM   #356
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
I can literally strap David into an MRI and objectively prove he "loves" his wife or not.

Within a few years we'll be able to alter the chemistry of David's and make him love or not love his wife.

Nothing subjective about it.

*And cue the "But wHAt abOUT dA QUALIA!" nonsense*
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:03 AM   #357
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I can literally strap David into an MRI and objectively prove he "loves" his wife or not.
I've never really bought this line of thinking.

I think it would be far easier to show someone loves you simply by observing their behaviour than by doing anything like this.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 12th August 2019 at 09:06 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:13 AM   #358
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
I've never really bought this line of thinking.

I think it would be far easier to show someone loves you simply by observing their behaviour than by doing anything like this.
It's not necessary except to counter the "But can your cold, hard science show you love!!!!!!" nonsense.

Yes. Yes it can. Verily easily in fact.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:26 AM   #359
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,787
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.
First we must we quantify "What is Love?"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 10:12 AM   #360
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.

I would say it is.

Does some girl you fancy reciprocate the feeling to the extent of actually loving you? Only you can answer that question to your satisfaction.

Since it is your satisfaction that is paramount (to you), no one else can dictate standards for you.

Your girlfriend does the girlfriend thing with you, but also does the same with one or two other guys. Or she bases her "love" on specific conditions, material or otherwise. Or her love is lukewarm, not passionate.

So is this truly love? And basis this love, will you continue on a relationship with her, or even ask her to marry you? Only you can decide that.

I may, basis my standards, offer you advice, if I were your friend. But I cannot impose my standards on you.

Does she love you, your girlfriend? Love you enough for you to act on? Only you can decide that. (And it is you that must live with the consequences of your decision, for better or for worse.)

With evidence, obviously. I disagree with David Mo when he says no evidence comes into play here. But how much evidence is enough, that is subjective, only you can decide that.

(With an equal amount of emphasis as you put in.)




Or are you someone who takes a poll of your friends, a peer review as it were, to decide whether your girlfriend loves you, and whether you should ask her to marry you, basis that evaluation? Even if you do that, it is still subjective, except you're voluntarily abdicating your decision, your standards, in favor of someone else's standards.


eta: Generic "you", needless to say. No personalization intended.

Last edited by Chanakya; 12th August 2019 at 10:26 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.