Page 34 of 46
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:07 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:49 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:28 pm
No.
If you come up with a theory and you don’t know how to falsify it you don’t know what assumptions you have made.
I know how to falsify every one of my theories.
Because I know what my axioms are.
You have to know how to falsify it at least in principle.
You have to know what observations would surprise you!
Normally people build a theory based on observations. The job is done if there is no anomaly left in observation. What do you want to falsify? You explain reality by an anomaly free theory.
Science doesn’t “explain” fuckall.
Science tests hypotheses. Observations are evidence for one hypothesis and evidence against another.
What you are left with is “most plausible” hypothesis GIVEN the set of hypotheses you were testing!
If you aren’t testing more than 1 hypothesis you have already made up your mind!
And if you are testing more than 1 hypothesis and hypothesis A is more likely than hypothesis B you know exactly what evidence you need to
We've already been over this in this thread. The scientific method is not the only way to find truth; it is one way. If something can be tested empirically, that is the ultimate proof that something works, but there are other epistemological ways besides starting out with a hypothesis (such as astute observation) that can lead to a truth.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:35 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
We've already been over this in this thread. The scientific method is not the only way to find truth
The scientific method is the only way to information.
Truth is a harmful religion. Dogma like every other.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
; it is one way. If something can be tested empirically, that is the ultimate proof that something works, but there are other epistemological ways
No there aren't. The laws of physics don't allow for it.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:08 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:35 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
We've already been over this in this thread. The scientific method is not the only way to find truth
“Logik” wrote:The scientific method is the only way to information.
Truth is a harmful religion. Dogma like every other.
Dogma is harmful. Truth is not. Religion preaches dogma.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
; it is one way. If something can be tested empirically, that is the ultimate proof that something works, but there are other epistemological ways
“Logik” wrote:No there aren't. The laws of physics don't allow for it.
Careful observation counts. Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:14 am
by Nick_A
Peacegirl
We've already been over this in this thread. The scientific method is not the only way to find truth; it is one way. If something can be tested empirically, that is the ultimate proof that something works, but there are other epistemological ways besides starting out with a hypothesis (such as astute observation) that can lead to a truth.
"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'" Freud once mused in "Sigmund Freud: Life and Work" by Ernest Jones.
I can verify that the scientific method does not lead to the truth of what women want. Men have been following them, testing them in accordance with the scientific method, and documenting their movements even from a distance and still no luck. Even the most precise scientific measurements have not revealed what women want other than to hit you on the head when you try to scientifically analyse them. A new path to the truth is needed.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:31 am
by surreptitious57
peacegirl wrote:
The scientific method is not the only way to find truth it is one way . If something can be tested empirically that is the ultimate
proof that something works but there are other epistemological ways besides starting out with a hypothesis ( such as astute
observation ) that can lead to a truth
Science does not deal in truth but in knowledge [ they are not the same ]
Empiricism does not lead to proof because proof is only a remit of deductive systems such as mathematics
Science is an inductive system that deals in evidence not proof other than the negative one of falsification
There is only one epistemological way to acquire knowledge and that is through science
Observation is part of the scientific method but it has to be inter subjective
This is because single person subjective interpretation can not be validated
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:40 am
by Walker
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:36 pm
You can falsify anything using logic. I still wouldn't go on your bridge if you constructed it using 2+2=1.
There's nothing to fear if you're mindful at icy altitude and watch your step on the untrodden path.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:13 am
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:08 pm
Dogma is harmful. Truth is not. Religion preaches dogma.
That's your definition.
My definition is all axiomatic truth is dogma.
All foundational epistemologies are dogma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Careful observation counts.
Careful observation IS counting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.
The hypothesis is synthesised from the counting.
In your case you don't have to worry about empiricism/testability. Because you have admitted that your claim is unfalsifiable.
It's not even wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:30 pm
by Arising_uk
Nick_A wrote:... Even the most precise scientific measurements have not revealed what women want other than to hit you on the head when you try to scientifically analyse them. A new path to the truth is needed.
You could just try asking them?
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:53 pm
by peacegirl
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:14 am
Peacegirl
We've already been over this in this thread. The scientific method is not the only way to find truth; it is one way. If something can be tested empirically, that is the ultimate proof that something works, but there are other epistemological ways besides starting out with a hypothesis (such as astute observation) that can lead to a truth.
"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'" Freud once mused in "Sigmund Freud: Life and Work" by Ernest Jones.
I can verify that the scientific method does not lead to the truth of what women want. Men have been following them, testing them in accordance with the scientific method, and documenting their movements even from a distance and still no luck. Even the most precise scientific measurements have not revealed what women want other than to hit you on the head when you try to scientifically analyse them. A new path to the truth is needed.
You're right about that unfortunately.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:56 pm
by peacegirl
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:40 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:36 pm
You can falsify anything using logic. I still wouldn't go on your bridge if you constructed it using 2+2=1.
There's nothing to fear if you're mindful at icy altitude and watch your step on the untrodden path.
I won't be convinced to cross a bridge that is rickety due to bad math.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:17 pm
by Logik
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:30 pm
Nick_A wrote:... Even the most precise scientific measurements have not revealed what women want other than to hit you on the head when you try to scientifically analyse them. A new path to the truth is needed.
You could just try asking them?
And if they don’t have the answer?
Most people don’t know what they want...
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:08 pm
by peacegirl
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:31 am
peacegirl wrote:
The scientific method is not the only way to find truth it is one way . If something can be tested empirically that is the ultimate
proof that something works but there are other epistemological ways besides starting out with a hypothesis ( such as astute
observation ) that can lead to a truth
surreptitious57 wrote:Science does not deal in truth but in knowledge [ they are not the same ]
Empiricism does not lead to proof because proof is only a remit of deductive systems such as mathematics
Science is an inductive system that deals in evidence not proof other than the negative one of falsification
There is only one epistemological way to acquire knowledge and that is through science
Observation is part of the scientific method but it has to be inter subjective
This is because single person subjective interpretation can not be validated
In my humble opinion, you're splitting hairs due to definition ONLY. Science is the way to find what is true and what isn't. I really don't care what you call it, a truth is a truth is a truth. We are talking in this thread about the truth that man's will is not free. If you fight me on this, I cannot move forward to show you how this law of our nature works in real life using a large sample of people. We can't use the whole world as a sample obviously, but this will give you enough to go on.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:17 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:13 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:08 pm
Dogma is harmful. Truth is not. Religion preaches dogma.
That's your definition.
My definition is all axiomatic truth is dogma.
I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.
Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Careful observation counts.
If this is a true universal law (I don't want to get into parallel universes), then we must confirm this law's truth by inference. We cannot see that someone moves in this direction directly, so we must infer. Does this mean he was wrong in his observations and analysis? Not at all.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.
Logik wrote:The hypothesis is synthesised from the counting.
That's okay. Count.
If the law is immutable, we can't prove this through an actual example because a law means there are no exceptions or it wouldn't be a law. But hypothetically it could be falsified. As I already mentioned, if we could choose what [we believe] is worse for ourselves when a better option [in our eyes] is available, then the author's definition of determinism would be wrong.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:19 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:17 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:13 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:08 pm
Dogma is harmful. Truth is not. Religion preaches dogma.
That's your definition.
My definition is all axiomatic truth is dogma.
I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.
Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Careful observation counts.
If this is a true universal law (I don't want to get into parallel universes), then we must confirm this law's truth by inference. We cannot see that someone moves in this direction directly, so we must infer. Does this mean he was wrong in his observations and analysis? Not at all.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.
Logik wrote:The hypothesis is synthesised from the counting.
That's okay. Count.
If the law is immutable, we can't prove this through an actual example because a law means there are no exceptions or it wouldn't be a law. But hypothetically it could be falsified. As I already mentioned, if we could choose what [we believe] is worse for ourselves when a better option [in our eyes] is available, then the author's definition of determinism would be wrong.
If the law is unfalsifiable it is dogma.
Every law of physics is falsifiable! Even gravity.
If a tennis ball flew upwards I would begin to question gravity! I am willing to give up gravity as a belief IF better evidence was provided.
You can’t even tell me what experience would convince you that you are wrong.
It is precisely because NOTHING can convince you that you are wrong is why I don’t care about the book.
Re: "But who am I to try to help you see the light?"
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:38 pm
by peacegirl
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:17 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:13 am
That's your definition.
My definition is all axiomatic truth is dogma.
I get that because an axiom is not proven. I used the word axiom so we could move forward. Call it dogma, call it a premise, call it whatever you want. The label is irrelevant.
Once again, call it whatever you want but this does not negate the UNDENIABLE FACT that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is the definition I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE, not the conventional definition of cause/effect leaving out the agent entirely.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Careful observation counts.
If this is a true universal law (I don't want to get into parallel universes), then we must confirm this law's truth by inference. We cannot see that someone moves in this direction directly, so we must infer. Does this mean he was wrong in his observations and analysis? Not at all.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Not every finding began with the intention to make that finding so there was no hypothesis to start with. That does not make the finding insignificant or empirically untestable.
Logik wrote:The hypothesis is synthesised from the counting.
That's okay. Count.
If the law is immutable, we can't prove this through an actual example because a law means there are no exceptions or it wouldn't be a law. But hypothetically it could be falsified. As I already mentioned, if we could choose what [we believe] is worse for ourselves when a better option [in our eyes] is available, then the author's definition of determinism would be wrong.
Logik wrote:If the law is unfalsifiable it is dogma.
Every law of physics is falsifiable! Even gravity.
If a tennis ball flew upwards I would begin to question gravity! I am willing to give up gravity as a belief IF better evidence was provided.
You can’t even tell me what experience would convince you that you are wrong.
I gave you a falsifiable example that should satisfy you. You didn't blink an eye.
Logik wrote:It is precisely because NOTHING can convince you that you are wrong is why I don’t care about the book.
It doesn't matter if you don't care about the book. This knowledge is not dependent on your analysis to determine if it's valid and sound. If nothing I can say inspires you to learn more, then move on my friend.