(September 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're an idiot.

There's a whole world of professional and academic resources out there published by the leaders in their field that acknowledge that scientific research is sitting on assumptions. Unproven, unprovable assumptions that are taken on faith and instead of acknowledging it, your desperate, cloying dependence on science as your "God" programs you, like a little puggle who gets excited when mama gets home from her librarian job, to fixate on that and only that.

It's such common sense that even OTHER atheists on OTHER forums are discussing this issue. College textbooks point to the issue. Logical Positivism of Ayer and Carnap's day have been thoroughly shown to be false.

And still you don't wanna let go to your 1950s notions of science and "the world of tomorrow!!!"?

Listen, Hoodie McGee, I'll make it simple for you:

a) Science depends heavily on the truth of mathematical and logical propositions.
b) The scientific method cannot "prove" a single mathematical or logical proposition.
c) Mathematical/logical propositions can be "proven" within their respective fields.
d) However, even the fields of mathematics and logic themselves
cannot be assessed by science.
c) Therefore the scientific method must assume the validity of mathematical and logical propositions without formal evidence for their validity.

I asked for examples and evidence of your statement. Instead you accuse me of saying all intellectual pursuits are scientific which to anyone who can read it is obvious I did not.

Then you insult me because... why exactly? Because I don't agree science makes metaphysical assumptions? Thats your claim we're talking about here. Not if science refines its research methods or whether it depends on mathematics or logical propositions. It has very little to do with what you claimed and I haven't even raised those points.

No, what I have contested is that science makes metaphysical assumptions and I will not have you sidetracking that query. That is what you stated and you have yet to prove that statement true.
If you are not capable of doing so and must continue utilizing Bill O'Reilly tactics that rely on mud slinging then don't even bother replying. I'm far too used to that kind of intellectual cowardice from outspoken theists and to be honest it bores me.

(September 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I love you too. But I don't tolerate someone with a 2nd grade understanding of epistemology and its relationship to the scientific method to get cocky.

Whatever, have fun talking to yourself, your highness.

(September 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm)LastPoet Wrote: You are aware that being condescendent makes you look more of a dumbass, instead of someone that actually knows something?

Tell you what, if you are going to tell everyone to stop arguing just because they don't agree with you, why don't you save us all the trouble and go back to those forums you feel recognized?

I love you too. But I don't tolerate someone with a 2nd grade understanding of epistemology and its relationship to the scientific method to get cocky.

Please, I doubt you'd know what knowledge is if someone beat you to death with it. It seems rather clear that you think whatever you say simply is and if someone disagrees with you then they are simply wrong.
You even went to the lengths of "misunderstanding" what I had typed to try and gain ground. I put that in quotation marks because to anyone reading it is painfully obvious you were grasping at anything to take the heat off your horrifically unbacked statement.
That type of intellectual cowardice doesn't work here you cheap Jersey Shore knock-off.

(September 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're an idiot.

There's a whole world of professional and academic resources out there published by the leaders in their field that acknowledge that scientific research is sitting on assumptions. Unproven, unprovable assumptions that are taken on faith and instead of acknowledging it, your desperate, cloying dependence on science as your "God" programs you, like a little puggle who gets excited when mama gets home from her librarian job, to fixate on that and only that.

It's such common sense that even OTHER atheists on OTHER forums are discussing this issue. College textbooks point to the issue. Logical Positivism of Ayer and Carnap's day have been thoroughly shown to be false.

And still you don't wanna let go to your 1950s notions of science and "the world of tomorrow!!!"?

Listen, Hoodie McGee, I'll make it simple for you:

a) Science depends heavily on the truth of mathematical and logical propositions.
b) The scientific method cannot "prove" a single mathematical or logical proposition.
c) Mathematical/logical propositions can be "proven" within their respective fields.
d) However, even the fields of mathematics and logic themselves
cannot be assessed by science.
c) Therefore the scientific method must assume the validity of mathematical and logical propositions without formal evidence for their validity.

I asked for examples and evidence of your statement. Instead you accuse me of saying all intellectual pursuits are scientific which to anyone who can read it is obvious I did not.

Then you insult me because... why exactly? Because I don't agree science makes metaphysical assumptions? Thats your claim we're talking about here. Not if science refines its research methods or whether it depends on mathematics or logical propositions. It has very little to do with what you claimed and I haven't even raised those points.

No, what I have contested is that science makes metaphysical assumptions and I will not have you sidetracking that query. That is what you stated and you have yet to prove that statement true.
If you are not capable of doing so and must continue utilizing Bill O'Reilly tactics that rely on mud slinging then don't even bother replying. I'm far too used to that kind of intellectual cowardice from outspoken theists and to be honest it bores me.

OH.

MY.

DAWKINS.

I have put down in front of you, a platter. I literally spoon-feed you, point-by-point, the fact that science relies on an assumption that is scientifically unprovable. I provide a real-life example of such an assumption: The reliance on mathematical propositions. You can see, with your own eyes, that if you take science to be the only source of truth, and physicalism as the reigning paradigm within which to see the world, you CANNOT account for the very mathematical calculations you use to do science.

Thus, science is BY DEFINITION incomplete as a source of truth.

I literally cannot dumb this down any further. You have successfully bested me with your irrationality. Congrats.

(September 1, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I asked for examples and evidence of your statement. Instead you accuse me of saying all intellectual pursuits are scientific which to anyone who can read it is obvious I did not.

Then you insult me because... why exactly? Because I don't agree science makes metaphysical assumptions? Thats your claim we're talking about here. Not if science refines its research methods or whether it depends on mathematics or logical propositions. It has very little to do with what you claimed and I haven't even raised those points.

No, what I have contested is that science makes metaphysical assumptions and I will not have you sidetracking that query. That is what you stated and you have yet to prove that statement true.
If you are not capable of doing so and must continue utilizing Bill O'Reilly tactics that rely on mud slinging then don't even bother replying. I'm far too used to that kind of intellectual cowardice from outspoken theists and to be honest it bores me.

OH.

MY.

DAWKINS.

I have put down in front of you, a platter. I literally spoon-feed you, point-by-point, the fact that science relies on an assumption that is scientifically unprovable. I provide a real-life example of such an assumption: The reliance on mathematical propositions. You can see, with your own eyes, that if you take science to be the only source of truth, and physicalism as the reigning paradigm within which to see the world, you CANNOT account for the very mathematical calculations you use to do science.

Thus, science is BY DEFINITION incomplete as a source of truth.

I literally cannot dumb this down any further. You have successfully bested me with your irrationality. Congrats.

Sure you can, just be yourself.
I'm sure you're just being modest. You seem as if you could single handedly dumb down the entire world.
I'm pretty certain the intellectual value of this forum drops everytime you add a post to it.

None of that qualifies as "metaphysical". Mathematics is a proven system of logic that makes no claim of a world beyond this one. It produces results and is applicable to the real world. You've presented evidence for another arguement entirely. Maybe focus on the query I put forward instead of the one you wish I had? Just a thought.
One last time, with feeling; Where are these metaphysical assumptions? Provide examples of at least one.

By the way, you shouldn't feel ashamed. Premature balding isn't that rare.

(September 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: OH.

MY.

DAWKINS.

I have put down in front of you, a platter. I literally spoon-feed you, point-by-point, the fact that science relies on an assumption that is scientifically unprovable. I provide a real-life example of such an assumption: The reliance on mathematical propositions. You can see, with your own eyes, that if you take science to be the only source of truth, and physicalism as the reigning paradigm within which to see the world, you CANNOT account for the very mathematical calculations you use to do science.

Thus, science is BY DEFINITION incomplete as a source of truth.

I literally cannot dumb this down any further. You have successfully bested me with your irrationality. Congrats.

Sure you can, just be yourself.
I'm sure you're just being modest. You seem as if you could single handedly dumb down the entire world.
I'm pretty certain the intellectual value of this forum drops everytime you add a post to it.

None of that qualifies as "metaphysical". Mathematics is a proven system of logic that makes no claim of a world beyond this one. It produces results and is applicable to the real world. You've presented evidence for another arguement entirely. Maybe focus on the query I put forward instead of the one you wish I had? Just a thought.
One last time, with feeling; Where are these metaphysical assumptions? Provide examples of at least one.

By the way, you shouldn't feel ashamed. Premature balding isn't that rare.

Mathematics itself can't be said to be metaphysical. But the corroboration between our understanding of logic and mathematics and the tendency of the observable world to correspond to this logical framework is a metaphysical assumption.

We observe it, but we have no reason to think that it is universal. Yet we work on the metaphysical assumption that it is universal. That any hypothesis or discovery is fundamentally logically or mathematically sound.

(September 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Sure you can, just be yourself.
I'm sure you're just being modest. You seem as if you could single handedly dumb down the entire world.
I'm pretty certain the intellectual value of this forum drops everytime you add a post to it.

None of that qualifies as "metaphysical". Mathematics is a proven system of logic that makes no claim of a world beyond this one. It produces results and is applicable to the real world. You've presented evidence for another arguement entirely. Maybe focus on the query I put forward instead of the one you wish I had? Just a thought.
One last time, with feeling; Where are these metaphysical assumptions? Provide examples of at least one.

By the way, you shouldn't feel ashamed. Premature balding isn't that rare.

Mathematics itself can't be said to be metaphysical. But the corroboration between our understanding of logic and mathematics and the tendency of the observable world to correspond to this logical framework is a metaphysical assumption.

We observe it, but we have no reason to think that it is universal. Yet we work on the metaphysical assumption that it is universal. That any hypothesis or discovery is fundamentally logically or mathematically sound.

The concept of the metaphysical by its very nature defys proof. Mathmatics is a system that is applicable in the real world and its results can be recreated time after time. Thats proof that its more than the imaginings of any one man. If I take one apple and put it in a basket with three apples I apply the numerical value of four apples to the contents of that basket. Thats basic mathematics. Its a system we use in our day to day lives and it demonstrably works. Would you debate this?
Until we find an instance in which it does not work and cannot be applied to a physical, tangible situation then why should such a tried and tested system be cast aside?

The concept of the metaphysicals chief characteristic is that it requires no proof because it is supposedly beyond our means of detecting it. I am not for one second saying this is an acceptable standard to go by but that is part of its definition.

If we follow your logic we must deduce your definition of the metaphysical entails anything conceptual goes under its header. This is evidently not the case and it would be sheer nonsense to claim as such.

So I put it to you once again; what metaphysical assumptions are made by science?

(September 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Mathematics itself can't be said to be metaphysical. But the corroboration between our understanding of logic and mathematics and the tendency of the observable world to correspond to this logical framework is a metaphysical assumption.

We observe it, but we have no reason to think that it is universal. Yet we work on the metaphysical assumption that it is universal. That any hypothesis or discovery is fundamentally logically or mathematically sound.

The concept of the metaphysical by its very nature defys proof. Mathmatics is a system that is applicable in the real world and its results can be recreated time after time. Thats proof that its more than the imaginings of any one man. If I take one apple and put it in a basket with three apples I apply the numerical value of four apples to the contents of that basket. Thats basic mathematics. Its a system we use in our day to day lives and it demonstrably works. Would you debate this?
Until we find an instance in which it does not work and cannot be applied to a physical, tangible situation then why should such a tried and tested system be cast aside?

The concept of the metaphysicals chief characteristic is that it requires no proof because it is supposedly beyond our means of detecting it. I am not for one second saying this is an acceptable standard to go by but that is part of its definition.

If we follow your logic we must deduce your definition of the metaphysical entails anything conceptual goes under its header. This is evidently not the case and it would be sheer nonsense to claim as such.

So I put it to you once again; what metaphysical assumptions are made by science?

See the part I bolded? That's the important part. Repeatability is NOT a measure of validity.

You might observe 100 white swans every time you look at a lake. You may observe one million white swans every time you look across a lake. You may observe a quadrillion white swans wading across a hypothetical lake.

But that IN NO WAY justifies an assumption that the very next swan will be white, nor does it justify an assumption that there are only white swans in the universe.

This is precisely the problem I am referring to. The problem of induction. Look it up.

Quote:You seem as if you could single handedly dumb down the entire world.

You win one internet for he pithiest response to Vinny.

My question for this whole subject is how far down the foundation of the link between mathematics, logic, and science do we have to formally prove before we can deem it practical? If reapeatability can prvoide useable results that allow us to manipulate reality for our own benefit, is it so necessary that a formal proof of why it works be developed? At what point to questions like this simply become academic?