Reality is Inaccessible

[attofishpi]

Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results.

No, it doesn't. Empirical defined:- based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory, ergo, an individual can experience something empirically, but is not required, or indeed may not be able to replicate via experimental observation for OTHERS.

You are insisting on scientific methodology to prove something empirically (to others) - not required by its implied definition.

"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empir ... ition.html

I don't think you are understanding my point. An individual can observe something empirically and is NOT required to prove it for that observation to be considered empirical.

[Terrapin Station]

We cannot actually see objects.

What we "see" is a reconstion of 2 upsidedown, 2d images from the backs of our retina turned into an electrical signal and "interpreted" . . .

If you can't actually see a retina, for example, there would be no way at all to know the above.

Are you disagreeing with my description of the mechanism of sight? REALLY?

I'm disagreeing that it can support that we can't actually see objects.

[Vitruvius]

I don't think you are understanding my point. An individual can observe something empirically and is NOT required to prove it for that observation to be considered empirical.

You disagreed with me. The obligation was on you to see my point, and you didn't. You directly contradicted me - saying "No, it doesn't'

It was not "Not necessarily..." or "Well, strictly speaking..." It was direct contradiction, as if the point I'm making is wrong. It's not wrong, so your point is moot. My point stands:

"Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results."

...and here's a qualified, independent observer who thinks the same as me:


"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

i.e. empirical proof!

[attofishpi]

I don't think you are understanding my point. An individual can observe something empirically and is NOT required to prove it for that observation to be considered empirical.

You disagreed with me. The obligation was on you to see my point, and you didn't. You directly contradicted me - saying "No, it doesn't'

It was not "Not necessarily..." or "Well, strictly speaking..." It was direct contradiction, as if the point I'm making is wrong. It's not wrong, so your point is moot. My point stands:

"Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results."

...and here's a qualified, independent observer who thinks the same as me:


"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

i.e. empirical proof!

You are being silly again, getting mixed up between what is SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICAL PROOF (of which I have not argument against), and the true definition of the word EMPIRICAL.

The word EMPIRICAL does NOT require any PROOF to be accounted for beyond an individuals observation.

[jayjacobus]

I don't think you are understanding my point. An individual can observe something empirically and is NOT required to prove it for that observation to be considered empirical.

You disagreed with me. The obligation was on you to see my point, and you didn't. You directly contradicted me - saying "No, it doesn't'

It was not "Not necessarily..." or "Well, strictly speaking..." It was direct contradiction, as if the point I'm making is wrong. It's not wrong, so your point is moot. My point stands:

"Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results."

...and here's a qualified, independent observer who thinks the same as me:


"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

i.e. empirical proof!

You are being silly again, getting mixed up between what is SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICAL PROOF (of which I have not argument against), and the true definition of the word EMPIRICAL.

The word EMPIRICAL does NOT require any PROOF to be accounted for beyond an individuals observation.

Empirical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. It is not based on science which does not proof it exists.

[Vitruvius]

You are being silly again, getting mixed up between what is SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICAL PROOF (of which I have not argument against), and the true definition of the word EMPIRICAL. The word EMPIRICAL does NOT require any PROOF to be accounted for beyond an individuals observation.

Every desert island I've ever visited I'm met with some bearded guy in a tattered lab coat, running down the beach screaming:

"You'll never see my empirical observations!"

And I always say the same thing:

"They're not empirical observations unless confirmed by an independent observer."

It's the difference between 'I saw a UFO' (nutter) and 'Several independent observers saw a UFO' (we are not alone).

I can get sillier, but the point remains. "Based on observation rather than theory" is not a definitive definition. That's not all there is to say about empiricism.

[attofishpi]

You disagreed with me. The obligation was on you to see my point, and you didn't. You directly contradicted me - saying "No, it doesn't'

It was not "Not necessarily..." or "Well, strictly speaking..." It was direct contradiction, as if the point I'm making is wrong. It's not wrong, so your point is moot. My point stands:

"Empiricism, which relies on one person's ability to replicate an experiment, and observe - and so confirm, the results."

...and here's a qualified, independent observer who thinks the same as me:


"Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information. Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results. The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California."

i.e. empirical proof!

You are being silly again, getting mixed up between what is SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICAL PROOF (of which I have not argument against), and the true definition of the word EMPIRICAL.

The word EMPIRICAL does NOT require any PROOF to be accounted for beyond an individuals observation.

Empirical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. It is not based on science which does not proof it exists.

Sure, verifiable to an INDIVIDUAL that has self analysed what he\she has observed.

[Vitruvius]

...

[attofishpi]

You are being silly again, getting mixed up between what is SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICAL PROOF (of which I have not argument against), and the true definition of the word EMPIRICAL. The word EMPIRICAL does NOT require any PROOF to be accounted for beyond an individuals observation.

Every desert island I've ever visited I'm met with some bearded guy in a tattered lab coat, running down the beach screaming:

"You'll never see my empirical observations!"

And I always say the same thing:

"They're not empirical observations unless confirmed by an independent observer."

It's the difference between 'I saw a UFO' (nutter) and 'Several independent observers saw a UFO' (we are not alone).

I can get sillier, but the point remains. "Based on observation rather than theory" is not a definitive definition. That's not all there is to say about empiricism.

Plenty of empirical evidence I have provided that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality here:-
Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

..when I state empirical evidence in this case, I am not talking about statements in my OP about my personal EMPIRICAL experiences, which could be all lies, wack-job, UFO material etc..

I am talking about observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

[simplicity]

It's a practical matter of fact that we have climate change, and there's limitless clean energy in the molten interior of the earth we could harness to our benefit. It's not a moral judgement, and if it were, then that would be presumptuous on my part. I don't know anything about corruption, and am not so virtuous that I can moralise credibly. I don't want subsequent generations to suffer, but that hardly makes me the second coming - despite the whole crazy trying to save the world thing!

Energy is not the problem. Human conduct is. This is why freedom is the only way out. Minimizing the effects that government and corporations have on human life [where corruption is deep-seated] is our best hope.

Long answer, I consider it my duty, to take the gifts bequeathed to me by the evolutionary struggle of previous generations, and use those tools to provide for the future; for subsequent generations. It's not an entirely unselfish motive - because, in the present - my identity is assured and magnified, assuming it belongs to a species with a future. I want hope - is that too much to ask?

If you conduct yourself correctly, the future will take care of itself. Remember, 99% of what is going to take place in the future has not been determined as of yet. Allow some higher force to take on that burden. Cut yourself a break.

Not at all...I can respect that POV, but I believe you will find as you get older that even having a positive effect on those around you is a major victory. Most importantly, NEVER assume that you are in the right. Being wrong is the method by which we all grow, so unless you have reached your peak, you are probably not so right about things most of the time.

"never assume you are in the right" - is the same as "this statement is a lie."

No, it's just admitting that we don't know very much at all.

It's paradoxical because you must have assumed you were right to tell me this! I couldn't have reached my current level of understanding if I didn't have an open mind, and a willingness to account for the relevant facts regardless of any preconceptions. I must assume I'm right provisionally, until those facts present themselves. Do you have any such facts?

In order to communicate with another person, you have to dive into the ocean of lies and deceit. Nobody really knows what's going on. How could they? Having said that, there are degrees of ignorance, i.e., people who understand the current bullshit really well, the folks who really don't get it but try to bullshit their way through it anyway, and then there are those who are just fucking stupid.

[Atla]

If you conduct yourself correctly, the future will take care of itself. ...
Allow some higher force to take on that burden. Cut yourself a break.

Here we go again

[Vitruvius]

Plenty of empirical evidence I have provided that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality here:-
Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

..when I state empirical evidence in this case, I am not talking about statements in my OP about my personal EMPIRICAL experiences, which could be all lies, wack-job, UFO material etc..

I am talking about observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

Wow, two reading assignments in the same day!

2500 years of science, and what I imagine is some admixture of God, aliens and quantum physics!

You were pipped at the post by uwot - I'll be reading and responding to his thing first.

If I forget, don't be offended, just remind me.

[attofishpi]

...

[Vitruvius]

Alta,

On page 7 and 8 - I mistook your comment to Sculptor - for a comment aimed at me.

I apologise, as I was quite rude.

I'm sorry. I'll pay closer attention in future.

FUCK OFF TO THE OTHER THREAD YOU TWATS

This must be confusing to you, deepest apologies. I forgot there for a second that we need to tread more lightly around the mentally handicapped.

Oh good, its you!

[attofishpi]

Plenty of empirical evidence I have provided that there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality here:-
Simulation or Divine Reality? - evidence of God\'God':- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

..when I state empirical evidence in this case, I am not talking about statements in my OP about my personal EMPIRICAL experiences, which could be all lies, wack-job, UFO material etc..

I am talking about observable evidence that I am able to project on this very forum, for you and all and sundry to observe and make your own minds up, as to whether the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed it is likely there is a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality.

Wow, two reading assignments in the same day!

2500 years of science, and what I imagine is some admixture of God, aliens and quantum physics!

You were pipped at the post by uwot - I'll be reading and responding to his thing first.

If I forget, don't be offended, just remind me.

Sure, uwot actually understands that there were many priests through time that made some amazing contributions to science. Your problem appears to be, a lack of understanding that wankers at the top - as in Popes etc, (..and for that matter politicians atheist and theist) would rather save face than face scientific facts. Unfortunately, you are one of those that think God is incompatible with scientific comprehension. - science v religion - it ain't that simple.

BTW:- I recall you stating that in the Bible there is a statement that the Sun revolves around the Earth - please cite the reference.