(March 14, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Frank Wrote: OK I'll play the semantical game here. If you were to ask me if flying pink gummy bears exist, I'd say no. Can I say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears never existed anywhere in the universe at anytime? I suppose not ... but that's really just a bunch of lard isn't it? Flying pink gummy bears never existed, and I'm absolutely certain of that fact.What has this got to do with science? I did notice your contradiction in the above though. First you say you cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that flying pink gummy bears (FPGB) never existed, and then you say you are absolutely certain of the fact that FPGB never existed. So which is it?
Quote:Let's go one further (these games are always sort of fun, if you have a good sense of humor). We know gummy bears are a candy, and no such creature ever existed, let alone a flying version of a gummy bear. What are the chances that we invented a candy, and in my mockery here I described a creature, based on that candy, which actually exists somewhere in the universe? It would of course be pure coincidence if it did exist. In fact it could only be a coincidence that had a one in several trillion chance of being true. However, maybe if mankind can survive for billions of years, and trillions of little comical hypotheticals like this are made (about trillions of different imaginary creatures) I suppose, statistically speaking, one of them will eventually be true (hey, maybe there really are flying gummy bears somewhere in the universe).I still don't see what FPGB have to do with science's inability to prove anything. If you think science has proved that FPGB have never existed, I'd like to see the following:
1) The paper in which the discovery was made.
2) The previous paper in which we managed to map the entire universe (I must have missed it...)
3) A competent scientist saying that they have "proved" something has never existed. I've never seen one make such a statement. They might allude to it, they might say it's highly unlikely or "next to impossible" but they have never given an absolute. Absolutes aren't respected in science, because one of the reasons science works so well is that it retests theories and improves them based on new evidence. Evidence may emerge tomorrow that disputes the theory of gravity...I take it you are absolutely certain the theory of gravity is correct?
Quote:So OK sure, if you'd like to base a philosophical or scientific axiom on that sort of outlandish thing, be my guest. How about I rephrase it. I like to think of things in terms of practical certainty. I'm certain the computer monitor I'm viewing this screen on exists, and I exist along with it. Is there a one in perhaps several trillion chance I could be wrong? I don't know, and I don't care, because it's immaterial. Subjectively I know both I and the monitor exist. I know we objectively exist, because the world treats me and the monitor as existing things. Therefore, I'm certain I (and the monitor) exist.I think of things in terms of practical certainty too...but that doesn't mean I am going to believe that science is an all-knowing system of proving things. It simply isn't. Science says the things I can see exist, and I'm fine believing that, but I won't claim it's been proved by science.
The existence of myself is a different matter. There is a logical argument for my existence; it's known as "I think therefore I am".
Quote:If you guys like to spend your time wondering if you exist or not .... again, enjoy! Far be it from me to be a party pooper.I don't. I find it more interesting wondering if what I see and interact with exists. Science can't prove that, and it never will be able to.
