define minimizers A B C T, you're going off at tangents, and as such you're making erroneous statements (within the context of this argument) Firsty, any, all, or some of the realities in the uiverse is/are quite seperate (within terms of concept and their nature) to: 1) the fundamental nature of the universe itself, 2)the fundamental nature of the process that brought the universe into exsistence 3)the fundamental nature of what therefore preceeded it 4) the fundamental nature of how THAT entity came into exsistence points 1-3(and hence also 4) are what is being discussed, and as such debating the above points in no way implies that one is doubting exsistence, ie i'm not sure statements A and B above actually have a valid context with respect to points 1-4 above, our exsistence, the nature of that exsistence is a seperate debate altogether. again, i think you're meandering slightly. on the contrary, ben hasn't been speaking of reality, only speculation and conjecture. the actual reality (as ive stated before) is that there is much that trancends our mere comprehension and rationalisation,and thus is beyond that which we can prove via science. this is the assertion of reality that people like ben resent. 1)if no alternative is put fwd to theory x, doesn't automatically imply the conclusive inherent validity of x 2) alternate postulations are put fwd, but they are umpalateable to those like ben, hence they choose not to accept them. it's ppl like ben who are reluctant, even obstinately unwilling. ]
And this is...ummm...bullshit. If you can't measure it then it has no bearing on reality. Well...no. This is again bullshit. Your ``postulations'' (if that's a word) are not well-founded in science. And their palatability is judged by their agreement with data, not my own personal tastes.
this doesn't mean that they are without inherent validity. the validity of a postulation is in no way governed or defined by science's ability to recognise such validity. again, can you prove that you have conclusive knowledge to the exact nature of: 1) the entire universe 2) how exactly the universe came into exsistence 3)the nature of the of the process that brought the universe into exsistence 4) the nature of the entity that therefore exsisted before the universe 5) exactly how this entity came into exsistence 6) the nature of the entity that exsisted before that entity.
Then it's obvious you do not care about the scientific method, but I take it as the only systematic way to obtain new knowledge. I only hope that you apply a different philosophy to your everyday life... If these questions cannot be tested, then they cannot be known. This strikes about half of your list from the top. Knowing what happened before the universe began is not a reasonable question for science, because it cannot be tested, and has no observable consequences. One can build theories to explain some of the other questions and derive some observable consequences. In this case, the value of such proposals is DIRECTLY proportional to their ability to predict measurements, and their simplicity in prediction. One such theory that has been built (and is unchallenged in the amount of things it explains) is the big bang. Every observation we have made has confirmed this model---there are no discrepencies. I can't understand how a (presumably) logical human being could deny the most noble of human abilities, specifically the ability to reason. How could someone abandon his experiences in favor of some dictate?
(Insert Title Here) People who seek to minimize the scale of a thing by using words like "just". You know, it's "just" a theory? Some of these theories are pretty damn sound. Yeah, that's an argument, alright. At the core is something a little easier for you to understand: You're being impractical. Philosophically, it's an interesting diversion, but it hasn't much value as a practical application. Of course you do. Some things that formerly transcended our mere comprehension and rationalization: Fire Lightning Flight Appendicitis Sexual reproduction Tides In each of these cases, humanity eventually got the hang of it. And we will continue to do so until we are no longer able. We're within ... microseconds, I believe, of the Big Bang in terms of modeling, and the outcomes are both reliable and valid. We will, eventually, cover that gap. And what we find may surprise us, but rather than simply throwing up our hands and lamenting to God, the leading edge of human intellect will simply nod and get back to work. I think we're more likely to find that time is an illusion than God is real, for instance. And the physicists, for the most part, will be okay. Such an outcome would simply mean they have more work to do.
on the contrary. however, the essence of the point ive been trying to make isn't that i care not about scientific method, but that i acknowledge it's limitations ie: just because science cannot explain x, doesnt mean x has no validity, or that x doesn't exsist one cannot dispute that the statement above is not devoid of inherent validity. depends on exactly what it is that you're trying to obtain knowledge about. yet the questions still remain valid. simple questions ben, requiring only yes or no. irrelevant, the questions still stand, and the validity of the questions still stands. cannot be tested with your beloved science, your faithful friend isn't all that you thought it was. no, not explain the specific questions i asked, not explain certain parameters of the universe, the density of this star, the distance of that planet...yawn, i meant complete, conclusive knowledge as to the exact nature of the entire universe we know a lot about the human body right? but no doctor, no geneticist, no hemotologist, no biochemist or any IST will be stupid enough to claim that they have complete, conclusive knowledge as to the exact nature of the entire body, and we're discussing the fucking universe here....get my point? waffle. i have implemented nothing but reason in this discourse with you. exsisting in the universe, experiencing it does not equate to complete knowledge as to the nature of it.
as opposed to those who minimize the entire universe with their arrogance, which actually makes them believe they know how something so vast, so complex came into exsistence? who's minimizing what exactly? practicality has no relevance, we're talking about elucidation, knowing the essence, the nature, the concept of an entity. it's about rationalisation, comprehension. does not mean that you can extrapolate, and conclude that we will ultimately know the universe. my point was not: we will know the universe my point was: at this point in time we do not know the universe doesnt mean we will though. still dwarfed in comparison to what is unknown speculation, you cannot say conclusively what will or will not happen, c'mon t be practical . you got that right. why not? why does the acknowledgment that your capacity to rationalise ultimately has limitations? why does the concept of god instill so much fear in you? indeed, but human intelect is finite. 1)now who's getting philosophical? 2) theres that fear again
outlandish--- Give an example where the scientific method fails to give some insight into Nature, and where some other methodology prevails. Show me some infallible insight into Nature that I can't obtain by the scientific method, but that you can obtain by some other means, and I will concede the argument. The bottom line is this---people like you deliberately obfuscate the matter to propogate some other dogma. The question of the origins of the universe is an inherintly scientific question, and scientific answers can be obtained by examining measurements that we make. We build a theory, and if all measurements that we make point to a specific conclusion, then that theory is ``correct'' until we have a better one. You betray a basic ignorance as to how science actually works. To this end, a scientific answer (i.e. something obtained as a result of the scientific method) is inherintly better than an a-scientific answer. A scientific answer transcends culural understandings, and is (most of all) repeatable and verifiable by independant means. Surely, in the limited cases that you have pointed out, the scientific method fails---specifically, in the case that there are no observable consequences, one can make no scientific statements, because one can't define any observable consequences. Inasmuch as this is the case, these questions are not scientific. And it is not clear (to me at least) how one can systematize the gaining of knowledge into such questions. In these cases, so long as there are no observable consequences, one is free to resort to ``belief''. In this case, all beliefs are on equal footing. You gave an example of medicine---would you trust a doctor to fix your broken bones, or vaccinate your childeren? Would you trust some folk cures before you trust vaccinations for diseases which scientists have developed? Have the last word if you like.
we're not talking about mere insight into the nature of the universe, i'm talking specifically about conclusive knowledge to the exact nature of: 1) the entire universe 2) how exactly the universe came into exsistence 3)the nature of the of the process that brought the universe into exsistence 4) the nature of the entity that therefore exsisted before the universe 5) exactly how this entity came into exsistence 6) the nature of the entity that exsisted before that entity. 1)again the discussion here isnt insight into nature, but the specific points stated above. 2) you wrongly conclude that i claim that science cannot offer insight into things per se, this isnt so, and a presumption on your part. 3) the argument was the specific points listed above, and furthermore science's limitations to offer conclusive answers to them, hence sciences' ultimate limitation, the science that you know doesnt exsist outside the capacity of human rationalisation, and since human rationilisation is finite it therefore follows that science as we understand has limitations. this is not to say that the "other" methods as you mention are any less valid. you fail to understand any other perspective that doesnt align with that of your opinions. the question of the origins of the universe are beyond our comprehension. not to the specific questions ive asked you above. thankyou. but this does not mean that the answers to those questions are not valid, if they answer the questions, then they are inherently by definition valid, my point is the answers lay outside our comprehension. i have no problem acknowledging that, why do you? . absolutely, ive been to doctors where i they have been able to treat me. ive had 3 operations on my eyes. however there have been instances where they have not been able to help me due to limitaions on their knowledge. and that help ive gained via routes beyond your comprehension, and beyond my willingness to discuss here with you. for every man of knowledge there is a man of greater knowledge. knowledge exsists outside of science, do not confuse the two concepts. again you make presumptions about me. i'm not denying science, i'm acknowledging its limitations. big difference. lol, cognitive surrender?
Ummm no? Just the realization that I'm tired of arguing this point with you. You're obviously not a scientist, and I have no patience tonight. I think Reiku needs a friend...you should PM him.
no, and thank god. the ability to reason is independant of science, the ability to reason is not defined by science. likewise knowledge is capable of exsisting outside of science. one does not have to be a scientist to have knowledge. the two entities of science and knowledge are completely seperate.
science cannot possibly explain the reason for the placebo effect. faith based "dogma" can. edit: don't get me wrong here. science is indeed a very valuable tool. one might even say indispensable. but it doesn't have all the answers. yet. i believe that everything has a rational explanation, but things like the origins of life and certain things about life in general may never be explained.
But you still need to quantize it right? You still need to measure something to prove it, right? isn't that just an experiment?
while ben loves looking like a fool when he ventures out into the wild, the above is a theistic troll. the expectation of the omniscient human the subsequent discovery of fallibility the substitution of human by god and the retention of omniscience very fucking convenient absolutely disgusting conclusive? exact?? this demand is so mind blowing in its arrogance and spitefulness, i would like it if wraith just dropped dead like a doornail annnnd whatnot
doornails, when dropped, bounce and roll around a bit. sorta like thrashing. i'm sure that isn't the message you wished to send.
Oh, balderdash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo It's long and involved, but there are a number of theories under investigation. It is almost certainly a combination of the three listed.
