The way (in science) we determine the truth of subject is by having some type of experiment through the scientific method to test a hypothesis or by using repeated empirical observations. Through thousands of experiments what we have as a result is modern science. However, what can be done when a hypothesis is untestable? How can the truth of a subject be determined then? Is it just forever unknown until it becomes testable?
What is a higher dimension? Is there a God? What happens in a Black hole? Where do ghosts exist? Is a virus self aware? What is pyschic phenomenon? What is a miracle? These are some examples that come to mind and we are all familiar with the arguements that come with them. Some are based on faith some on indoctrination some on instinct and some are questions which have arisen naturally due to the accumulation of knowledge eg the questions we ask about black holes. Pure maths and logic can take us some of the way and no doubt we use the later one hell of a lot. For example cross fertilisation is sometimes unsuccesful, you can't breed a rhino with a giraraff for example but logic would tell us if possible the result would be very weird. Of course much of it is about the fallacy of arguements that are presented and there is a good link here to explain the logic behind this http://people.eku.edu/williamsf/HON102Web/falsec-web.htm#4 Personally I love the unknown which normally falls hand in hand with the untestable. We are creatures that strive and thirst for it but my conclusion is that you have to make certain 'asumpsions' in order for new information to come through and present itself. I call them leaps of faith. For example the most recent in the quantum world is that of higher dimensions existing to account for the weakness of gravity compared to the other forces. This is like fresh air for me because from a unscientific stance I have proved to myself using logic, observation and interaction that higher dimensions exist. Of course in my own personal experiences I have applied my own criteria to test the hypothesis that a higher dimension exists, all non-scientific but then I don't have to prove anything to anyone and this is where the problem arises. If you want to convince others of your new found knowledge whether it's scientific or paranormal you have to prove it until you do others won't necessily believe you. It normally comes down to faith and proof and I think you have to takes leaps of faith to get new proof. That is my neo-philosophy anyway. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. In early usage, scholars often referred to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations as a hypothesis; when used this way, the word did not necessarily have any specific meaning. Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of the older sense of the word in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis. In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Yes, that is the stance of a lot of scientists and rationalists. That empirical testing, all of whose steps can be shown and repeated, is the only method of determining truth. Any other ideas about the truth are merely guesses. That we should huddle inside that circle like settlers being circled by the nasty natives and their bows and arrows.
One thing that truth can be determined about, but not in an "objective" way, not necessarily in an interpersonally verifiable way, is to carefully watch one's mind and see what one's intentions are. For a person, these truths are extremely important.
No, no. You should sit in a circle and meditate to find what is there already.Avoid new knowledge lest it confuse you.
Look before you leap and with, a bit of luck, you may not have to leap at all, as life passes you by.
I think truth is ultimately a metaphysical concept. Certain things in science are called true only because they fit with our observations and measurements.
I'm talking about you and your attitude to truth whatever that may be. There is only empirical evidence and we must make of it what we can.
Objective truth is beyond us. But we can approach it by incorporating models of reality that fit observation. Practically, truth is this: the evidence gathered and models conceived that best fit this evidence. The pursuit of this truth is noble and should be held above all else.
If you are talking about me then you clearly don't know what you are talking about. I read non-fiction by experts in a variety of fields regularly. I read journals in a number of fields regularly. I occasionally take a college courses in science for the fun of it, for the challenge and because it interests me. I have two humanities/social science degrees but, nevertheless, I am interested in the natural sciences. I have traveled and spent time learning about other cultures. I have interviewed experts in a variety of fields. I love learning and I make use of a variety of methods to gain knowlege, certainly a good number of them you would approve of. My goodness, I am even social with a reasonable number of scientists, some family members. I have rarely been known to cover up my ears and meditate in a corner when they are there for fear of learning something. It seem you have a couple of boxes to put people into. Experience, let alone the empirical research out there, should have given you the impression you need more boxes. Try a couple more boxes, test it out and get back to us. Which is precisely what I said most scientists and rationalists assume, albeit mockingly, but not harshly. From this you seem to have drawn the conclusion that I do not like to learn. How very odd. Poor deduction. But do give induction a try with your boxes.
To say that most scientist and rationalists "assume" there is only empirical evidence suggests that there may be evidence that is being disregarded. If you know of such evidence, please tell us what it is. I shall set up a box for irrational evidence, if that helps you at all.
Nice distraction. You made assumptions about me that are incorrect. Feel free to admit this. I mean, why not be a role model for empiricism.
