Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:44 amBecause "ALL" evidence today is not "ALL" evidence tomorrow, and it's not "ALL" evidence next year. "ALL evidence" is time-dependent.
Thank you Skepdick, on behalf of anyone who shares your inability to either read or process this sentence:
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:11 amIt simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".
On behalf of people whose opinion is worth a fuck (Scientists, not Philosophers)
Very interesting Skepdick, well done. Is that the sort of compliment you need to wipe your ass with? Yes, gravitational waves would be a problem for Newton's theory if it hadn't already been falsified over a hundred years ago. It still works pretty well though.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:38 pm
Yes, gravitational waves would be a problem for Newton's theory if it hadn't already been falsified over a hundred years ago.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:11 am
It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".
So uuh, all known data didn't "count equally". LIGO counted AGAINST Newton and FOR Einstein.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:38 pm
Newton's theory if it hadn't already been falsified over a hundred years ago. It still works pretty well though.
So what?
UG works.
GR works better.
It's a better theory. But I already said that. You probably misunderstood it. Again.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:44 am
Given two underdetermined theories the one which makes more accurate predictions is the better theory!
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:38 pm
Yes, gravitational waves would be a problem for Newton's theory if it hadn't already been falsified over a hundred years ago.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:11 am
It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".
So uuh, all known data didn't "count equally". LIGO counted AGAINST Newton and FOR Einstein.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:38 pm
Newton's theory if it hadn't already been falsified over a hundred years ago. It still works pretty well though.
So what?
UG works.
GR works better.
It's a better theory. But I already said that. You probably misunderstood it. Again.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:44 am
Given two underdetermined theories the one which makes more accurate predictions is the better theory!
Thank you again Skepdick, on behalf of anyone who doesn't know that there is a wealth of data that demonstrates that Newton's theory is no longer underdetermined, it is in fact demonstrably false. There are currently no qualified scientists doing research into whether Newton is right or wrong, although there are several groups that I know of who are working on Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which is just one of the underdetermined theories that are under active investigation.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:57 pm
Thank you again Skepdick, on behalf of anyone who doesn't know that there is a wealth of data that demonstrates that Newton's theory is no longer underdetermined, it is in fact demonstrably false. There are currently no qualified scientists doing research into whether Newton is right or wrong, although there are several groups that I know of who are working on Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which is just one of the underdetermined theories that are under active investigation.
Well, OK but...
If you already know that "ALL the available data" falsified Newton 100 years ago.
And if you already know that "ALL the available data" has not falsified Einstein yet (but "ALL the available data" tomorrow might).
If you already know that "ALL the known data" counted AGAINST Newton, but it didn't count AGAINST Einstein, then why did you say this...
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:11 am
It simply is the case that all the known data "counts equally for all sides".
You already knew of a counter-example to your own claim and yet you still said it. Why? Did you forget about the counter-example? Or did you learn about it when I told you?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:00 pmDid you forget about the counter-example? Or did you learn about it when I told you?
Skepdick, everything you say is a revelation to me. You are the reason I turn my laptop on. Surely that is enough to wipe your ass with, so now you can fuck off.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:11 pm
Skepdick, everything you say is a revelation to me.
Great. That's how learning works.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:11 pm
You are the reason I turn my laptop on. Surely that is enough to wipe your ass with, so now you can fuck off.
I can't wipe my ass with your compliments, but I am busy wiping my ass with your ego.
And you sure seem to know it. Maybe it's time to rage-quit?
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:11 pm You are the reason I turn my laptop on. Surely that is enough to wipe your ass with, so now you can fuck off.
It's not enough for wiping my ass, but it may be enough to crush your ego.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:22 pm
I don't think crushing egos is what the people at Philosophy Now had in mind when they organised this forum.
Philosophy Now didn't prescribe any guidelines - I am going on your personal convictions.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:02 pm
This is called gaslighting. I'm sure everyone knows someone who cannot admit that they are wrong. The most common reason for this is low self esteem, which creates a moral dilemma: should we laugh or feel pity? I suppose the answer depends on our own self esteem. The really funny/tragic cases are so terrified of admitting their weaknesses or mistakes that they will question the perception and memory of the people who challenge them. In conversation this can lead to confusion, self-doubt and anger for the victim. When the discourse is written down, it is a simple matter of going back and checking. I understand you perfectly well, Immanuel Can; whether we talk depends on the state of your ego.
Do you know someone that fits the description? Somebody who lives in the mirror?
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:22 pm
I don't think crushing egos is what the people at Philosophy Now had in mind when they organised this forum.
Philosophy Now didn't prescribe any guidelines - I am going on your personal convictions.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:02 pm
This is called gaslighting. I'm sure everyone knows someone who cannot admit that they are wrong. The most common reason for this is low self esteem, which creates a moral dilemma: should we laugh or feel pity? I suppose the answer depends on our own self esteem. The really funny/tragic cases are so terrified of admitting their weaknesses or mistakes that they will question the perception and memory of the people who challenge them. In conversation this can lead to confusion, self-doubt and anger for the victim. When the discourse is written down, it is a simple matter of going back and checking. I understand you perfectly well, Immanuel Can; whether we talk depends on the state of your ego.
Do you know someone that fits the description? Somebody who lives in the mirror?
Oh I see. That's very noble of you Skepdick. That wasn't a deliberate attempt to crush Immanuel Can's ego. it was was an admittedly petulant attempt to understand why he reacts so doggedly against an idea that is hardly controversial. I'm very pleased that Immanuel Can is robust enough to continue the conversation and I apologise to Immanuel Can for any distress.
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:38 pm
Oh I see. That's very noble of you Skepdick. That wasn't a deliberate attempt to crush Immanuel Can's ego. it was was an admittedly petulant attempt to understand why he reacts so doggedly against an idea that is hardly controversial. I'm very pleased that Immanuel Can is robust enough to continue the conversation and I apologise to Immanuel Can for any distress.
I feel like there's reason you are trying to shift the spotlight away from yourself and onto Immanuel?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:40 pmI feel like there's reason you are trying to shift the spotlight away from yourself and onto Immanuel?
Gut feel. Could be wrong.
It was you that brought him up. It is true that he believes some things that I strongly disagree with and that I have tried to change. The irony is that since I am convinced that people hold beliefs for aesthetic reasons, according to my own belief i am wasting my time. We can discuss what that says about my ego, if you wish, but it will be difficult for you to crush my ego, not because I am particularly resilient, but I simply don't care enough what you think.