[quote]groo wrote:
The Earth orbits the sun as it rotates (spins) on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour.[/quote]
Wrong. 1000MPH is incorrect.[/quote]
The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24901.55 miles
It goes around once a day… Well, except for that day described in that old book…
a day is roughly 24 hours…
so at the equator it’s moving a little over 1000 mph…
do to get only 1000 mph you’d have to move away from the equator a little…
Yep, seems “incorrect” to me…[/quote]
All estimates. And all using definitions by convention, not fact.[/quote]
So what you want is for everyone to be aware that we don’t know as much as we think we do but also accept that there isn’t any other option than to use the conventions that we have in place? This should all just boil down to the thing you said about people who are dogmatic being failures or what have you.
Who claims science is a religion? Who is making science more than it is? Its certainly not scientists. No scientist ever believes a law of empirical science to be incontrovertible. Science does allow us to know a lot of things with a high degree of probability.
[/quote]
Many scientists do. Hawking is a good example. He not only believes that the equations are perfectible, but that we are capable of it, AND that figuring the equations will get us a glimpse of the supernatural nature of it.
And if it is to a probability, it isn’t known.[/quote]
The first Known it lists is ravens are black. They are only by convention. Ravens are partially glossy. How much gloss is permitable and still call it “real” black is subjective. I’m sure there are also variations in the amount of some of the light being reflected. What range is acceptable and call it black are subjective.
Not to mention the abstract classification of what constitutes a raven. What really differentiates me matter of a raven from that of a swallow? nothing in science does. It’s only convention that we generally accept to help define what a raven is. And even then, that convention is subject to change for numbers of reasons. And even then, there would be gray areas. If I were to create a living breathing adult “Raven” having all the traits of one, but I made it out of dirt.
This “known” also grossly overlooks the fact that ravens could be plucked or turned inside out or painted all of which would make them not black even by their own convention.
So, no, ravens are black is not a known.[/quote]
Read it eh? Get past the preface. Its an accurate description of why we consider things known in empirical science. If you wish to deny all knowledge that comes from empirical science simply because its only a probability you never understood it. This has always been the case. Science has always began as arguments from statistically significant syllogisms.
Listen I understand you believe a sky god is the prime mover and shaker, even if this were so it doesn’t devalue science.
If you don’t truly believe we can know anything that’s great but state it don’t hem and haw against science. Say it loud say it proud. There is no knowledge. We are all solipsists.
[/quote]
No, I understand that perfectly, it’s all the people that tout science so much that don’t understand it.
I’m not denying it. I use it. I enjoy it. I practice it. But a probability isn’t knowlege. In a continuous universe and margin is infinite possibilities. Saying the earth spins at about 1000 mph leaves infinite possibilities as to its actuality. Not to mention you cannot physically determine “earth” to begin with.
I’m the one constantly claiming science and supernatural don’t in any way effect each other. I’m glad you agree.
[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]
Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]
All science is is descriptions of the natural world…labels as it were…you seem to not get this. Mathematical equations aren’t empirical science btw and are known absolutely. Its only in the empirical science where probability is equated to knowing things. The book I linked you does a nice job of explaining this process…though largely I think you don’t care. I do have about 1001 more things that science knows that you can feel free to dispute though…or wait maybe its 991 now.[/quote]
Math is empirical. 2+2=4 because in the physical world if you add 2 things to 2 things you end up with 4. That is how math is formed. Calculus is built on the behavior of the universe. derivatives and integrals are based on acceleration and velocity ect.
Now there are some non-empirical parts of math, for example i. But those only exist by convention.[/quote]
If a tree falls in a forest and nothing hears it, does it make a sound.
You could say yes or no based on what conventional definition of sound you use. And you can’t claim either is wrong because convention cannot be absolutely right or wrong. Because even something like a sound is only so be people agreeing on it, NOT FACT. sound is not a physical property of the universe.
The only things that are are empirical physics. That is why all science is actually physics and why there are no knowns without it.
[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]
Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]
All science is is descriptions of the natural world…labels as it were…you seem to not get this. Mathematical equations aren’t empirical science btw and are known absolutely. Its only in the empirical science where probability is equated to knowing things. The book I linked you does a nice job of explaining this process…though largely I think you don’t care. I do have about 1001 more things that science knows that you can feel free to dispute though…or wait maybe its 991 now.[/quote]
Math is empirical. 2+2=4 because in the physical world if you add 2 things to 2 things you end up with 4. That is how math is formed. Calculus is built on the behavior of the universe. derivatives and integrals are based on acceleration and velocity ect.
Now there are some non-empirical parts of math, for example i. But those only exist by convention.[/quote]
Arithmetic isn’t proven empirically.
[/quote]
no science is ever proven at all.
and all that isn’t empirical is convention. Do you admit that at least?
[quote]groo wrote:
The Earth orbits the sun as it rotates (spins) on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour.[/quote]
Wrong. 1000MPH is incorrect.[/quote]
The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24901.55 miles
It goes around once a day… Well, except for that day described in that old book…
a day is roughly 24 hours…
so at the equator it’s moving a little over 1000 mph…
do to get only 1000 mph you’d have to move away from the equator a little…
Yep, seems “incorrect” to me…[/quote]
All estimates. And all using definitions by convention, not fact.[/quote]
So what you want is for everyone to be aware that we don’t know as much as we think we do but also accept that there isn’t any other option than to use the conventions that we have in place? This should all just boil down to the thing you said about people who are dogmatic being failures or what have you.[/quote]
Actually this is all a tangent based on someone making assertions about me and me agreeing to play along with those assertions.
But no, for the most part, people don’t understand what science is and what it means to be known in science.
[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]
Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]
All science is is descriptions of the natural world…labels as it were…you seem to not get this. Mathematical equations aren’t empirical science btw and are known absolutely. Its only in the empirical science where probability is equated to knowing things. The book I linked you does a nice job of explaining this process…though largely I think you don’t care. I do have about 1001 more things that science knows that you can feel free to dispute though…or wait maybe its 991 now.[/quote]
Math is empirical. 2+2=4 because in the physical world if you add 2 things to 2 things you end up with 4. That is how math is formed. Calculus is built on the behavior of the universe. derivatives and integrals are based on acceleration and velocity ect.
Now there are some non-empirical parts of math, for example i. But those only exist by convention.[/quote]
Arithmetic isn’t proven empirically.
[/quote]
no science is ever proven at all.
and all that isn’t empirical is convention. Do you admit that at least?[/quote]
If you push me I’d say your Infallibilism is silly. You are not arguing science at all you are arguing epistemology and that is great I like it. But I am a constructivist. I don’t think for something to be known it has to be infallible and that is what you are pushing whether or not you use the terms.
To me all knowledge is contingent on conventions among other things so you bringing that up as an objection simply means we define knowledge differently.
[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]
Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]
All science is is descriptions of the natural world…labels as it were…you seem to not get this. Mathematical equations aren’t empirical science btw and are known absolutely. Its only in the empirical science where probability is equated to knowing things. The book I linked you does a nice job of explaining this process…though largely I think you don’t care. I do have about 1001 more things that science knows that you can feel free to dispute though…or wait maybe its 991 now.[/quote]
Math is empirical. 2+2=4 because in the physical world if you add 2 things to 2 things you end up with 4. That is how math is formed. Calculus is built on the behavior of the universe. derivatives and integrals are based on acceleration and velocity ect.
Now there are some non-empirical parts of math, for example i. But those only exist by convention.[/quote]
Arithmetic isn’t proven empirically.
[/quote]
no science is ever proven at all.
and all that isn’t empirical is convention. Do you admit that at least?[/quote]
If you push me I’d say your Infallibilism is silly. You are not arguing science at all you are arguing epistemology and that is great I like it. But I am a constructivist. I don’t think for something to be known it has to be infallible and that is what you are pushing whether or not you use the terms.
To me all knowledge is contingent on conventions among other things so you bringing that up as an objection simply means we define knowledge differently.
[/quote]
So all knowledge in your view is inherently abstract? interesting…
If you push me I’d say your Infallibilism is silly. You are not arguing science at all you are arguing epistemology and that is great I like it. But I am a constructivist. I don’t think for something to be known it has to be infallible and that is what you are pushing whether or not you use the terms.
To me all knowledge is contingent on conventions among other things so you bringing that up as an objection simply means we define knowledge differently.
[/quote]
So all knowledge in your view is inherently abstract? interesting…[/quote]
So what do you see as the difference between the conventions of science and those of religion?
I meant with arithmetic its proven by non empirical means. In Russell’s theory of arithmetic for example he goes on a long time about basically its very difficult to accurately define what a number is and that its not empirical. The empirical part of numbers are sets of things but they are not the same thing as the number itself.
[quote]groo wrote:
I meant with arithmetic its proven by non empirical means. In Russell’s theory of arithmetic for example he goes on a long time about basically its very difficult to accurately define what a number is and that its not empirical. The empirical part of numbers are sets of things but they are not the same thing as the number itself.[/quote]
No, it isn’t proven. it’s rules are just accepted as part of the system. Numbers and operators are defined only because people say they are.
[quote]groo wrote:
The Earth orbits the sun as it rotates (spins) on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour.[/quote]
Wrong. 1000MPH is incorrect.[/quote]
The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24901.55 miles
It goes around once a day… Well, except for that day described in that old book…
a day is roughly 24 hours…
so at the equator it’s moving a little over 1000 mph…
do to get only 1000 mph you’d have to move away from the equator a little…
Yep, seems “incorrect” to me…[/quote]
All estimates. And all using definitions by convention, not fact.[/quote]
So what you want is for everyone to be aware that we don’t know as much as we think we do but also accept that there isn’t any other option than to use the conventions that we have in place? This should all just boil down to the thing you said about people who are dogmatic being failures or what have you.[/quote]
Actually this is all a tangent based on someone making assertions about me and me agreeing to play along with those assertions.
But no, for the most part, people don’t understand what science is and what it means to be known in science.
[/quote]
From now on I’ll preface statements with, “For all practical purposes…”.
[quote]groo wrote:
The Earth orbits the sun as it rotates (spins) on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour.[/quote]
Wrong. 1000MPH is incorrect.[/quote]
The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24901.55 miles
It goes around once a day… Well, except for that day described in that old book…
a day is roughly 24 hours…
so at the equator it’s moving a little over 1000 mph…
do to get only 1000 mph you’d have to move away from the equator a little…
Yep, seems “incorrect” to me…[/quote]
All estimates. And all using definitions by convention, not fact.[/quote]
So what you want is for everyone to be aware that we don’t know as much as we think we do but also accept that there isn’t any other option than to use the conventions that we have in place? This should all just boil down to the thing you said about people who are dogmatic being failures or what have you.[/quote]
Actually this is all a tangent based on someone making assertions about me and me agreeing to play along with those assertions.
But no, for the most part, people don’t understand what science is and what it means to be known in science.
[/quote]
From now on I’ll preface statements with, “For all practical purposes…”.[/quote]
lol. I just needed a good argument and I wanted to see if I could defend the position, and maybe figure out better where I stood on the subject.
The human condition is to seek absolute knowlege of our circumstances. Many are mislead by science into thinking they found it. Science is at heart a hollow mistress. Use it, but don’t put your love and trust in it.
If you push me I’d say your Infallibilism is silly. You are not arguing science at all you are arguing epistemology and that is great I like it. But I am a constructivist. I don’t think for something to be known it has to be infallible and that is what you are pushing whether or not you use the terms.
To me all knowledge is contingent on conventions among other things so you bringing that up as an objection simply means we define knowledge differently.
[/quote]
So all knowledge in your view is inherently abstract? interesting…[/quote]
So what do you see as the difference between the conventions of science and those of religion?
[/quote]
This would be an easy definition of a constructivist view of knowledge…its not the only one there are empirical ones as well…
“Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all knowledge is “constructed” in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience”
Constructivism is largely a pragmatic way of thinking about knowledge.
I’d say that human perception allows us to see or experience many of the conventions of science.
I don’t see with my perceptions conventions of any particular religion. It is completely arbitrary to say Christianity is true for example and that Wicca is false. Now either may be true and there may be a supernatural path to knowledge that some people have access to…I don’t believe it to be the case, but certainly that could be because I can’t discern that path.
As well I have a personal investment in science because I like the benefits of technology which while not being equivalent to science certainly has a much closer link to it than religion. I like air conditioning and medicine and television and microwaves and cars and so on.
Also a paradigm that allows constant revision to come close to what we pragmatically know certainly seems superior to one that insists it can’t be either proven or disproven other than by eschatological means.
And we really do know that no one tries harder than an ugly girl on her honeymoon.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The human condition is to seek absolute knowlege of our circumstances. Many are mislead by science into thinking they found it. Science is at heart a hollow mistress. Use it, but don’t put your love and trust in it.[/quote]
Let’s not turn this to philosophy as well. Don’t know if you read Wired magazine, but they had a good feature in this month’s issue about the problems inherent in defining what a kilogram is and the changing mass of “Le Grand K”.
If you push me I’d say your Infallibilism is silly. You are not arguing science at all you are arguing epistemology and that is great I like it. But I am a constructivist. I don’t think for something to be known it has to be infallible and that is what you are pushing whether or not you use the terms.
To me all knowledge is contingent on conventions among other things so you bringing that up as an objection simply means we define knowledge differently.
[/quote]
So all knowledge in your view is inherently abstract? interesting…[/quote]
So what do you see as the difference between the conventions of science and those of religion?
[/quote]
This would be an easy definition of a constructivist view of knowledge…its not the only one there are empirical ones as well…
“Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all knowledge is “constructed” in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience”
Constructivism is largely a pragmatic way of thinking about knowledge.
I’d say that human perception allows us to see or experience many of the conventions of science.
I don’t see with my perceptions conventions of any particular religion. It is completely arbitrary to say Christianity is true for example and that Wicca is false.
[/quote]only as arbitrary as calling ravens black. We do it because it can be useful, can you truly not see any use of religious belief?[quote]
Now either may be true and there may be a supernatural path to knowledge that some people have access to…I don’t believe it to be the case, but certainly that could be because I can’t discern that path.
As well I have a personal investment in science because I like the benefits of technology which while not being equivalent to science certainly has a much closer link to it than religion. I like air conditioning and medicine and television and microwaves and cars and so on.
[/quote]
Not if god set the physical rules of the universe in place and gave us the brains to try to figure them out. =0)
Not if you are seeking an absolute truth. Revision and absolute truth are incompatible.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The human condition is to seek absolute knowlege of our circumstances. Many are mislead by science into thinking they found it. Science is at heart a hollow mistress. Use it, but don’t put your love and trust in it.[/quote]
Let’s not turn this to philosophy as well. Don’t know if you read Wired magazine, but they had a good feature in this month’s issue about the problems inherent in defining what a kilogram is and the changing mass of “Le Grand K”. [/quote]
Ah, but the original post was meant philosophically.