I always love it when I get into a discussion with a believer, I address their point, and I can never seem to get a "ok, good point" when I'm right and they can't counter it, or even a refutation when I could be wrong... I get a red herring, I get a discussion-jump, or I just get ignored. Every time. I expected better of you, Chad. But ok, let's explain why the scientific method works using the scientific method...

The scientific method entails using observation and empirical evidence to explain how something works.

I observe that the application of the scientific method has led to advances in medicine, communication, sustainability, transportation, chemistry, culture, agriculture, hygiene, safety, production, information... Empirical evidence of this is everywhere. You're on a machine that is itself empirical evidence of this. Therefore, science works, because it comes up with tangible, observable results that can be proven or disproven. Why it works is because the scientific method applies the realities of the universe without bias, by using evidence obtained through tests and observations...tangibles that anyone can see or hear or generally have communicated to them so long as they are capable of the standard reasoning processes homo sapiens possesses. That is WHY it works; it communicates to our perceptions the way things work, and the empirical evidence is mentioned above; the results, the fruits of the labor.

Good enough? I had to edit this to more fully address the why, since originally I'd just stated how I know it works, hopefully now it gives an explanation as to why.

(May 8, 2013 at 11:10 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: … I can never seem to get a "ok, good point" when I'm right and they can't counter it, or even a refutation when I could be wrong... I get a red herring, I get a discussion-jump, or I just get ignored. Every time. I expected better of you, Chad.

Don’t be disappointed just because I didn’t high-5 you or address each and every point of yours. Many of my concerns have been ignored as well. This has been mostly a one-man show since I’m the only one (other than fr0d0) to shoulder the burden. That’s okay. I just wish I had more time. In some cases, though, I feel I already have addressed some points in previous replies. It doesn’t make sense to me to repeat myself with each new person presenting the same objection. Or it seems that my meaning is not getting across no matter how careful my wording. Moreover, I’m not the only one presenting red-herrings. Any average person on the street understands that the subjective experience of listening to music cannot be reduced to physical facts.

(May 8, 2013 at 11:10 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: But ok, let's explain why the scientific method works using the scientific method.

And how is this any different than using the bible to prove the bible is true?

(May 8, 2013 at 11:10 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...The scientific method entails using observation and empirical evidence to explain how something works.

So your answer is "using observation and empirical evidence". Those are the presuppositions I am asking you to question, both in the OP and in my subsequent responses. We both know that the scientific method works. But that’s as far as you, or anyone else apparently, will go. You are correct that our ability to communicate on AF is a product of the scientific enterprise. At the same time you cannot ignore that the substance of our communication is the conveyance of meaning by means of signification and expressions of purpose and intent. Take away those and there is no science to be had.

As for myself, I have made an existential choice to believe that inductive reasoning, the very basis of the scientific method, works for a reason. The other option is to maintain that it works for no reason at all. And if it works for no reason at all, then it could just as easily stop working.

(May 8, 2013 at 8:36 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Too many people seem to think that science is our only source of knowledge about the world. If that were the case it would be acceptable to take these presuppositions as properly basic. Fortunately the world is much richer than scientific knowledge. No scientific and mathematical analysis of Bach's music could capture its magic. The awe and beauty of Bach's music is nothing if not supernatural. So if you want to see the magic, that's it.

Perhaps you were using supernatural in the colloquial sense of "otherworldly". If so I agree. But if you seriously want to claim anything as being supernatural I would have to question your evidence for dismissing anything of which we can become aware as not natural. I think we are at an impasse where neither of us can either show that we are right or that the other is wrong. For me, the "supernatural" will always be an empty set. Whatever is is natural .. unless you have in the mind the natural vs man-made distinction, which I am not addressing.

(May 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm)whateverist Wrote: For me, the "supernatural" will always be an empty set. Whatever is is natural .. unless you have in the mind the natural vs man-made distinction, which I am not addressing.

I'm just really really tired of people making stupid comparisons between non-physical properties and imaginary creatures like pixies, unicorns and gnomes. (Could I at least get a cool dragon once in a while)

(May 8, 2013 at 8:36 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Too many people seem to think that science is our only source of knowledge about the world. If that were the case it would be acceptable to take these presuppositions as properly basic. Fortunately the world is much richer than scientific knowledge. No scientific and mathematical analysis of Bach's music could capture its magic.The awe and beauty of Bach's music is nothing if not supernatural. So if you want to see the magic, that's it.

Getting pretty fast an loose with your definitions ther, aren't you?

By the way, Bach's music does nothing for me. Stravinsky, Penderecki, Ligheti, Bartok are where I find awe and beauty. Still, nothing supernatural about them.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: meanwhile mine actually has some data to back it up and support the conclusion I have come to.

So what is the purpose of life according to this empirical knowledge that you posess?

Because lets not forget the subject and not switch to another where both you and I CAN draw empirically based conclusions. Why and how would I or could I disagree with you on those? Please state your case.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: Now, which of us looks silly: the one who has calibrated his worldview to match the evidence, or the one who holds a worldview in spite of any evidence at all?

Currently you're looking very silly as you appear to be making claims of knowledge from not knowing something.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: See, what you fail to realize is that logic is not evidence, and moreover that logic can be faulty. Logic once held that the Earth was flat, since from the ground we see a flat plain. Logic once held that the sky was a dome, since we see it enclosing the (flat) Earth. What showed us that those things were not true? Oh, right: evidence!

You're seriously suggesting that logic is not evidence? I might want to frame that one. If logic is faulty then it isn't logic. It's illogic. To conclude that the earth is flat would be a mistaken assumption, given the evidence.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: Something being logically possible tells you nothing about whether or not it exists, only that you're formulated a premise that is not contradictory or otherwise invalid.

Yes. If it pans out/ cannot be disproven... then at this point we hang our best effort at understanding it. This is how science works. Do you not use the same standard for logic??

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: You are operating under the idea that a logically sound premise is true, and if you want to give that view any kind of weight you need to demonstrate it

(corrected)

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...because there are a multitude of other logically possible rationalizations to compete with the one you've picked.

Really? Name a few.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: Since you're sticking with this idea that there can be no empirical evidence for your claim, you've kind of logicked yourself out of the running, there.

Why? why can't you use your best logic and defeat it that way? How can you defeat the logic with no evidence? Where is your scientific vigour?

(May 8, 2013 at 5:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: Once again, faith is obstinate gullibility, not evidence.

So you say. But all I see are empty words vs sound logic. Taken at face value, this looks like a clear choice, wouldn't you agree. Which woukld you choose?

(May 8, 2013 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 12:16 am)Esquilax Wrote: Still not getting this whole "beliefs can be wrong," thing, I see.

Did that go over your head? Your belief that the chair won't collapse when you sit on it could be wrong. But you figured on the balance of probabilities that it would hold up just like it always has. That fine tuning applies to my rationalisation probably more so than the faith you put into that chair. So how do you work out that I'm not open to possibilities?

I have seen someone sit on a chair and it collapsed under him.

He was only about 9 stone as well!

(May 8, 2013 at 12:58 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm)whateverist Wrote: For me, the "supernatural" will always be an empty set. Whatever is is natural .. unless you have in the mind the natural vs man-made distinction, which I am not addressing.

I'm just really really tired of people making stupid comparisons between non-physical properties and imaginary creatures like pixies, unicorns and gnomes. (Could I at least get a cool dragon once in a while)

Haven't a clue what you are talking about. I certainly have not mentioned pixies or the like, nor do I have that in mind. I was actually addressing the qualia you are so fond of mentioning. I claim they are as natural as anything else in our experience. Oh, and fuck you.

(May 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As for myself, I have made an existential choice to believe that inductive reasoning, the very basis of the scientific method, works for a reason. The other option is to maintain that it works for no reason at all. And if it works for no reason at all, then it could just as easily stop working.

You will, very regretably, continue to exist even if you were to rise far above yourself and throw out the reasons you conjured up for why it works.

So it is not an existential choice. It is a petulent election of a mind unable to ween itself from the infantile comfort of the fairy tale.

At school the kids loosened all the screws in Teachers chair. She wasn't expecting to lie sprawled in front of them. Funny.