Login

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:00 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

Let's do this in reverse order.

The scientific method exists as a set of instructions regarding how one would "do science", that's all it is. No assumptions required

Any given observation may not exist in actuality, or our observations may be so flawed as to be roughly equivalent to non-existentence. This is acknowledged and part of the process described above is meant to handle that eventuality. Observation itself may not exist, but then the observation that observation may not exist would not exist. You have a serious problem with forming non-cognitive propositions. Nonetheless, science would then leverage what "appeared to be observations" which is essentially what it does in any case, as these observations are always open to review. No assumptions required.

If people did not exist, then what appear to be people would be using what appear to be observations, by leveraging a notion which they have termed "the scientific method" to make conclusions about their non-existent existence. You do realize that you have a harmful addiction yes? lol.

Why would it be impossible, because you assume so? Here you are mistakenly calling this or that an assumption and then you end it off by making an assumption of your own. Color me unimpressed. By the by, some scientists and some theories do propose that we are actually a simulation. If this were shown to be factually accurate then all of your criticisms regarding the possibility of factual non-existence would be true, but the conclusions you seem to have drawn from that would be terribly inaccurate, whilst the conclusions reached by science would remain intact, with the small addition of "these are the laws of the simulation". It's honestly inescapable, because we've built a damn fine system. These things are not assumptions, they are assessments of what "appears to be", regardless of whether or not they actually are. Open to review, and every claim very much subject to doubt and skepticism (necessary parts of the system). Again, it is the search for explanations, not some elusive objective truth, that once discovered is discovered once and for all. That sort of search is one that has been extremely unproductive, and has largely been a search undertaken by philosophy (without the aide of other useful things, like empirical methods.....which might explain why it's been so damned unproductive in the first place).

In this existence, whatever it's composition or factual state, empirical methods and science work. They work for us even if we are not actually real, as they obviously have an ability to alter our fantasy world along predictable lines. Your objections are the product of misunderstandings about science (and a strong fondness for philosophy), and I mean that in the friendliest way. I'll take them both, I like results. I'll criticize them both when they fail to produce results. There's a line for me as well, where science ceases to be satisfying and I prefer philosophy. Specifically with regards to fuzzy concepts of the human mind which elude detection. Things like "good", and "evil" in their purest form.

amkerman · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:01 pm by amkerman.)

No logic needed. Just add water. You claim that in order for science to exist people, observations, and the scientific method are needed. In the next breath you claim the science can exist without people, observations, or the scientific method.

So assumptions are not "assessments of what appears to be"? I thout that definition worked quite nicely.

I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth rhythm, but I have to ask. Do you believe we are living in the matrix? Is this all a simulation where nothing actually exists as it appears? If so, what do you base that belief on? It's obviously not science.

Perhaps · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm by Perhaps.)

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Let's do this in reverse order.

Ok, let's.

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The scientific method exists as a set of instructions regarding how one would "do science", that's all it is. No assumptions required

You are assuming the axiom: reason is the source of truth is indeed true. You are also assuming the axiom: I exist, is true.

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Any given observation may not exist in actuality, or our observations may be so flawed as to be roughly equivalent to non-existentence. This is acknowledged and part of the process described above is meant to handle that eventuality. Observation itself may not exist, but then the observation that observation may not exist would not exist. You have a serious problem with forming non-cognitive propositions. Nonetheless, science would then leverage what "appeared to be observations" which is essentially what it does in any case, as these observations are always open to review. No assumptions required.

Yes, the observation that no observation exists, is in-fact an observation. This would mean that observation could never be disproved, just as thought can never be disproved. Once again, this depends on the axiom: reason is the source of truth, and the axiom: I exist.

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If people did not exist, then what appear to be people would be using what appear to be observations, by leveraging a notion which they have termed "the scientific method" to make conclusions about their non-existent existence. You do realize that you have a harmful addiction yes? lol.

I have a harmful addiction? Please elaborate. However, this just further confirms that science could not prove the non-existence of people. Which is my original statement. It has to assume that people do exist. It can't exist if people do not.

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why would it be impossible, because you assume so? Here you are mistakenly calling this or that an assumption and then you end it off by making an assumption of your own. Color me unimpressed. By the by, some scientists and some theories do propose that we are actually a simulation. If this were shown to be factually accurate then all of your criticisms regarding the possibility of factual non-existence would be true, but the conclusions you seem to have drawn from that would be terribly inaccurate, whilst the conclusions reached by science would remain intact, with the small addition of "these are the laws of the simulation". It's honestly inescapable, because we've built a damn fine system. These things are not assumptions, they are assessments of what "appears to be", regardless of whether or not they actually are. Open to review, and every claim very much subject to doubt and skepticism (necessary parts of the system). Again, it is the search for explanations, not some elusive objective truth, that once discovered is discovered once and for all. That sort of search is one that has been extremely unproductive, and has largely been a search undertaken by philosophy (without the aide of other useful things, like empirical methods.....which might explain why it's been so damned unproductive in the first place).

Philosophy is the essentially the study of self. It does not search for objective truth, simply subjective truth. Science searches for objective truth. Also, I am making the assumption that it is impossible. I am doing so because I can't converse with you if I don't. (I can explain if you need me to).

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In this existence, whatever it's composition or factual state, empirical methods and science work. They work for us even if we are not actually real, as they obviously have an ability to alter our fantasy world along predictable lines. Your objections are the product of misunderstandings about science (and a strong fondness for philosophy), and I mean that in the friendliest way. I'll take them both, I like results. I'll criticize them both when they fail to produce results.

Science works as a method through which we are able to understand our perspective of the world. Philosophy works as a method through which we are able to understand our perspective.

(December 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's a line for me as well, where science ceases to be satisfying and I prefer philosophy. Specifically with regards to fuzzy concepts of the human mind which elude detection. Things like "good", and "evil" in their purest form.

We are the same in this respect. I prefer science, but I am very open to criticizing it's knowledge or truth. I am in love with philosophy but realize it's limitations in understanding the world we live in. I am a deep thinker, but understand the need for 'shallow' thought to go through life.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:34 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

I cant make this any more plain to you. The things that I call facts are based on the production of results, not axioms or assumptions.

You're again trying to smuggle "truth" into science. I've already explained why this is inappropriate. You want to make it so because otherwise what is largely non-cognitive shit becomes irrelevant non-cognitive shit.

Speaking of perspective, nueroscience has done more to explain our perspective in the last fifty years than philosophy accomplished in hundreds of thousands......I hope you aren't referring to anything we've discussed here as "deep thought"...fuzzy thought maybe, deep thought...no.

Your harmful addiction..hehehe, allowing yourself to spend considerable amounts of time offering credibility to fuzzy concepts without appearing to bother to check and see if they have real world analogs, or if those fuzzy concepts are already handled by real world applications. Creating definitions for things so as to make a "philosophical argument" when the only argument that exists is one over your definitions. What exactly do you think I've been on about all this time? All this time in which you have not once attempted to address my initial concern, and instead decided to bait me into a conversation about science which you turned into exactly the thing I criticized you for in the first place.

Perhaps · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:30 pm by Perhaps.)

(December 23, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I cant make this any more plain to you. The things that I call facts are based on the production of results, not axioms or assumptions.

You're again trying to smuggle "truth" into science. I've already explained why this is inappropriate. You want to make it so because otherwise what is largely non-cognitive shit becomes irrelevant non-cognitive shit.

Speaking of perspective, nueroscience has done more to explain our perspective in the last fifty years than philosophy accomplished in hundreds of thousands......I hope you aren't referring to anything we've discussed here as "deep thought"...fuzzy thought maybe, deep thought...no.

Nothing you said is true or even exists if a.) You don't exist. and b.) Reason is not the source of truth.

Assumption is the root of everything. There is nothing objective, nothing true. We simply assume. Once this base assumption is made then we can 'prove' 'truths' to ourselves by means of reason and science. This does nothing but further validate these original assumptions as we can understand them.

Science does not exist outside of our conscious perception. Therefore, nothing science supports through verified evidence is true outside of our conscious perception. There are limits, regardless of what science says. Arrogance is an inherent part of human nature, humility must be realized.

amkerman · December 23, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Perhaps: I fear that you are entering an exercise in futility. You are either a better man than I for attempting to elucidate rhythm to your line of thought, who, from my perspective at least, is simply attempting to rationalize his self-delusional and contrary statements in efforts to avoid the negative effects of cognitive dissonance, without even the slightest hint of indignation, or subtle sardonicism amuses you to no end(that was quite a sentence, I hope it made sense grammatically). I'm going to assume the former, because I have seen no evidence that you have tried to be anything but honest in all your posts.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

Oh jesus fucking christ. Nothing I've said is true if I don't exist or if reason is not the source of truth? Except that even if I didn't exist, and reason were not the source of truth, I (as a phantom) still produce results through it's application (though the true credit may lie elsewhere).

To you, assumption may be the root of everything, to me, it is not. Science does not "prove" anything, it offers explanations that fit the information available, even if that information is illusory, and even if existence is illusory, it offers an explanation which is useful in producing results.

Of course it doesn't, because it's a product of our minds. The things which it describe do, even if all is an illusion, as they are a separate illusion from ourselves (as best as we can determine, by "gasp"...evidence) though a part of the same overall illusion.

Of course there are limits, but none even approaching anything that you've suggested.

You may be happy to assume that arrogance is part of an assumed humans assumed nature...I prefer evidence. Well, look at that, we've reached the same conclusions by different methods. What do you think the difference between your method of simply assuming all of this and my method of demanding evidence might be?

Ive had someone else try and tell me what my assumptions were before, by the analogy of a car. Claiming that I "assumed the uniformity of nature" when I got into my car. Lemme tell you the same thing I told him. I don't assume that my car will work. I don't assume that based upon the fact that I've gotten in my car, turned the key, and nothings happened. I know that my car should work, as long as nothing has changed, because it worked once before (at least). Every time I turn the key and my car starts it gives me yet another instance to refer to which relieves me of requiring any assumptions. It may not start tomorrow, I acknowledge that. Thing is, it just keeps starting. The same is true with science. What was once a set of assumptions has become a statement of facts, by simple repetition and production of results.

Assumptions are an impediment to science, not a requirement. All known physical laws could change at the drop of a dime, we'd notice that. They don't, we've noticed that. It's not about assuming, it's about observing.

Perhaps · (This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm by Perhaps.)

Since: "Assumption is the root of everything. There is nothing objective, nothing true. We simply assume. Once this base assumption is made then we can 'prove' 'truths' to ourselves by means of reason and science. This does nothing but further validate these original assumptions as we can understand them. " didn't make sense to you, let's try a different method...

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Oh jesus fucking christ. Nothing I've said is true if I don't exist or if reason is not the source of truth? Except that even if I didn't exist, and reason were not the source of truth, I (as a phantom) still produce results through it's application (though the true credit may lie elsewhere).

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To you, assumption may be the root of everything, to me, it is not. Science does not "prove" anything, it offers explanations that fit the information available, even if that information is illusory, and even if existence is illusory, it offers an explanation which is useful in producing results.

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Of course it doesn't, because it's a product of our minds. The things which it describe do, even if all is an illusion, as they are a separate illusion from ourselves (as best as we can determine, by "gasp"...evidence) though a part of the same overall illusion.

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Of course there are limits, but none even approaching anything that you've suggested.

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You may be happy to assume that arrogance is part of an assumed humans assumed nature...I prefer evidence. Well, look at that, we've reached the same conclusions by different methods. What do you think the difference between your method of simply assuming all of this and my method of demanding evidence might be?

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ive had someone else try and tell me what my assumptions were before, by the analogy of a car. Claiming that I "assumed the uniformity of nature" when I got into my car. Lemme tell you the same thing I told him. I don't assume that my car will work. I don't assume that based upon the fact that I've gotten in my car, turned the key, and nothings happened. I know that my car should work, as long as nothing has changed, because it worked once before (at least). Every time I turn the key and my car starts it gives me yet another instance to refer to which relieves me of requiring any assumptions. It may not start tomorrow, I acknowledge that. Thing is, it just keeps starting. The same is true with science. What was once a set of assumptions has become a statement of facts, by simple repetition and production of results.

Why?

(December 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Assumptions are an impediment to science, not a requirement.

Why?

Simply stated, there is either ignorance or assumption.
Either 'I don't know' or 'because'.

amkerman · December 23, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Which is why I reiterate my question Rhythm: do you believe we are living in the matrix? Is reality nothing more than a series of illusions? What you just said may be rational (except the 3rd paragraph, which made no sense. If you were an illusions there would be no reason to believe that other things were separate illusions from yourself, at least I don't think, but if I'm being honest nothing you have said for quite some time makes any sense to me, I feel you are just spouting nonsense due to stubbornness, and I could be wrong) but will you agree at least that it's illogical (highly improbable, considering there is no evidence to support such a notion).

**The Grand Nudger**

Why? -Results.

Why? -Why what, why doesn't science prove anything? Because thats not what it was designed to do. Why is it useful in producing results if everything were illusory? That's inexplicable isn't it? (Which is why I dont argue for that proposition) Nevertheless, it is, as the results are the very evidence for it's effectiveness.

Why? -Again, that the evidence that leads us to conclude this produces results, the argument that you proposes leads to exactly nothing but a thought, not even remotely useful or demonstrable.

Why? -Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and does?

Why? -Now this one is just you being a douche, answering a direct question with "Why?" as though it even formed a coherent thought. Next.

Why? -Another worthless question meant to appear as honest inquiry...there isn't even anything to "why" in this one, as it is an explanation of "why" already. There's no rabbit hole here.

Why? -Because our assumptions have led to unproductive wastes of time and been shown to be very flawed many many times.

Look, still no assumptions. This is starting to get tedious. My toddlers pull the "why-as-ad-naus" on me every day buddy. Bad choice of approaches....I have experience...lol. Thanks for the hide tag practice though

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me