Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Feb 25, 2012.
Wow. So everything boils down to belief, there is nothing better than belief?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There would have been an observation, as far as the process of science goes, that is all there would have been.
1) observation is not science.
2) you're making a metaphysical claim, that observations are objective truths.
3) science is metaphysically neutral, it makes no difference, to science, what metaphysical stance one holds about observations.
4) your metaphysical stance is no better supported than Mind Over Matter's claims about god are.
5) in order to support your metaphysical stance, you will need an argument.
6) if you want to support your claim that science is a method that leads to knowledge, you will need to extend your claims to include models and make further arguments.
This is the philosophy sub-forum and philosophy is the support of positions by reasoned argument. It isn't hand waving with stuff about hitting thumbs with hammers or the like.
Yes, of course you would.
This is the kind of stuff you need to explicate and support.
There has been no discovery of wave function collapse. Wave function collapse is a story told about an interaction of an abstract model with observables. So, you appear to be confusing models with observations.
I find nothing in your lighthouse reference that says prior to 1990 scientists said a rogue wave event occured at the lighthouse.
I find nothing in your references that says events prior to 1990 scientists were attributed to rogue waves.
Concerning probability, no event has a zero probibility.
"For example, what is the probability that a hand will reach through this screen and hand each of us a pot of gold with a note attached that says: "Shut up and I'll double your money." Some things are just flat impossible."
No event has zero probability, no event is "flat impossible", according to science :
A logically consistent way of maintaining the events of probability zero are actually impossible is presented.
~ ~ ~
•The numeric value of a probability is any Real number from zero to one, inclusive. An event with “zero” probability cannot occur; if the probability is ’1′ then the event must occur. As well, the probability that the experiment will yield some event in the probability space is exactly ’1′.
~ ~ ~
Quantum mechanics takes this a step further, because in the quantum world almost anything is possible with some non-zero probability. For example, quantum mechanics says that objects can penetrate (classically) impenetrable barriers. You probably won't get through a brick wall just by walking into it, but there is some extremely small but non-zero probability that you will.Since, in practice, the notion of "impossibility" is a very useful one, we have had to redefine the meaning of "impossible". Where it used to mean a zero probability, now it means a very small probability. Which leads to the question: how small?
This question has no definite answer, and the best answer I can give is: so small that the probability of observing the "impossible" event, on any randomly chosen day, multiplied by the maximum number of days in the forseeable future (like several billion years), multiplied by the number of people who are ever going to exist, should be so small that it will "almost certainly" never be observed at all by anyone. That way, we can safely say that we will "almost certainly" never come to a wrong conclusion by incorrectly rejecting a theory which is used to calculate such a probability. You can then fine-tune the definition of "almost certainly" according to your own personal risk tolerance.
An event with zero probability is thus regarded as impossible, an event with probability equal to one thus is regarded as certain.
~ ~ ~
STATISTICIANS have a saying: ``There is a non-zero probability that the planet will explode in the next five minutes'', meaning, of course, that the probability of every conceivable event is greater than zero.
~ ~ ~
Assigning events a zero probability would contravene Cromwell's rule, which can never be strictly justified in physical situations, albeit sometimes has to be assumed in practice.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/rule-of-succession#ixzz1pSxNFAO6
~ ~ ~ ~
For the record, your reference to a 'strawman', should instead refer to a 'red herring'.
I was showing (with the rogue wave example) that direct experience can lead an individual to objective truth without the scientific method, by extension, to things such as 'god', that are beyond the realm of the SM.
I do not agree this is a red herring.
It is merely a 'real world' example of what most of us recognize, and that is that for many of us, our experiences do not need to be validated by the SM.
Assigning events a probability is not objective truth. This is subjective. For example, if there is a 20% chance of showers, and it does not rain, the final hard data to test that estimate, indicated the odds of rain turned out to be 0%.
The approach creates an alternate reality which can give practical results but always contains added subjectivity. One should not confuse this practical value with objective truth.
Law of non-Contradiction.
Relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.
I will be well surprised if those are your own words. Kindly either explicate your claim or link to the site from which you filched it.
It looks to me like you're essentially implying that all atheists are necessarily relativists, and that therefore their position is indefensible. If that can be said to be one of your contentions, let's explore it. If it's not, then I guess you're only addressing a small subset of atheists, and not atheism in general.
Forgive my impatience; assuming that your conclusion, that relativism is self-refuting, depends on the assumption of a universe of discourse in which validity requires non-contradiction, the existence of paraconsistent-logically supported universes of discourses seems, to me, to render your own argument, however stated, a reductio of absolutism. In short, you appear to be engaged in an irreducibly question-begging endeavour.
No. Atheism has nothing to do with relativism or my comment. Though it leads to the same place as relativism, indifferentism but that's another topic.
Actually, it's not really a separate topic, since the implication is that indifferentism is an inevitable result of not embracing that which you feel is necessary in order for there to be any sort of legitimate, objective truth at all. You know, God. So are you saying that an atheist has no rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or is unable to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics?
That may just be it, however I highly doubt that he can support such claims, given that he doesn't even have a grasp on what atheism is yet.
Objectivity and absolutes are not presuppositions, they're logical conclusions. If you're stating the way I'm defeating relativism is begging the question of realism, you're mistaken. Realism is a valid premise because logic leads to it. What is your contrast? Conceptualism and nominalism? Absurd ideas and completely indefensible.
A thing cannot be both A and not A at the same time an in the same way; that is the law of non-contradiction. It is absolutely inconceivable that this even could be false.
Please specify the logic and spell out the argument, premises and conclusion.
Of course it's not inconceivable, the principle of non-contradiction is not unrestrictedly true in paraconsistent logics.
Objectivity is a learned behavior. It comes from knowing every possible outcome in any situation. Experience can help you gain it, but no person holds it's all.
It is impossible to say anything about objectivity without being subjective. It is what it is
You already did for me in this comment, by you demanding premises and a conclusion is demanding objectivity. And in doing so demonstrates truth exists outside the mind. Thank you for proving my point.
The question with most people is how to make truth exist inside the mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you do not have an argument, kindly link me to whatever site it is where you got the idea that there is an argument. I cannot provide a crit unless you produce something.
Separate names with a comma.