It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
Science doesn't oppose metaphysics.
It just has no comment, because you can't verify any of it with direct observations and experiments.
No. Gravity is a law and a constant and is directly proportionate to the mass of the object in question. The EFFECT of gravity could change if the mass of the earth changed, but the laws of physics are called laws for a reason. They don't change and gravity won't suddenly change the way it works. If you wish to suggest this, then explain how this could happen and use science to demonstrate it.
I have already answered this. You claimed science was faith based, therefor you are arguing against its validity. I'm still waiting for a valid reason why.
By science, I am referring to the scientific method as it currently stands.
Right now, peer review is a big part of the process.
It's not JUST about experiments, it's about the ability of others to scrutinize them by duplicating them and double checking their work. I'm talking about modern science, not archaic science where somebody could just arbitrarily make a statement and claim it is scientific because he has that background.
Obviously this kind of thing can lead to corruption, payoffs and agendas being pushed. This is why peer review is extremely important.
So 99% of biologists are disciples of Darwin. Gotcha. I think you should keep the religious terms away from science. They don't go together.
I asked for scientific theories. Heliocentricism is accurate.
Geocentrism wasn't an official scientific theory
"Newtonian physics" isn't a scientific theory either, and they didn't end up being false, they ended up being a smaller part of the picture.
You still haven't told me what you want me to back up. You made a silly blanket statement about evolution. I didn't see you back that up. You are making my points for me. I appreciate that. You have demonstrated perfectly how science holds more weight than philosophy or random statements made on the internet.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not a scientific field of study.
It is entirely theoretical (and not in the scientific meaning of the word). It is pretty much making educated guesses. There are no experiments to test any of it.
You didn't address me point for point. You addressed me line for line. Many of my points were broken up which changed the context.
Now this is getting kind of funny. Do you have a peer reviewed article on peer reviewed articles? But wait, if that's the case, who is going to write one for the peer review of the peer reviewed article on peer review? LOL. Science objectively proves things and the knowledge is used to make technology, improve modern medicine, provide food to people on a massive scale, allow instant global communications, etc etc. That is direct evidence that it works and is not based on faith. I don't understand how you fail to see this. You broke down all my other posts line for line, yet somehow mysteriously didn't even address that main point. Objective evidence means that it can be verified via experiment and scientific observation. It is the basis of the scientific method.
How you perceive the world does not change the objective scientific experiments that show how things work. You keep equating philosophy to science. They are not the same thing. Something that is not objectively verified is considered unknown in science. Science draws conclusions from what can be verified. Philosophy attempts to make conclusions based on what we do not know. It is night and day. Science is NOT based on subjectivity. It doesn't matter that it evolved from philosophy originally or that educated guesses based on facts are made to create hypotheses to test. Science, as it stands today, is a great method of fact discovery. It is much more reliable today than it was a couple centuries ago, for sure.
We don't "rely" on philosophy to determine anything tangible.
It is just interesting to think about the possibilities and what we can learn from them. The problem with philosophy is that it is based on assumptions.
I do personally believe that "pain" from drowning occurs because we often instinctively hold our breaths in real life when we become submerged in a dream. Obviously that's a subjective guess.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
You're missing my point. I guess that's OK.
Archaic science like what Newton and Darwin did. Good to know.
Because peer review doesn't suffer from these problems...
Yes, but they ended up being false from the perspective that they did not fully explain the laws of the universe.
I said that because you made a blanket statement about philosophy (I think it was.)
Yes. Which is why saying "metaphysics has no proof for it" is like saying "dentistry has no proof for it" or "ethics has no proof for it."
You keep telling me this without addressing my point, which is that science is based on *assumptions.* You say that science is not based on faith because it is objectively provable. It's only objectively provable if you take a few things on faith...such as the idea that inductive reasoning is valid.
Listen to yourself. You are saying that "science draws conclusions from what can be verified." Verified by what? Science? Can science verify its own standards? Does science verify that the scientific method is sound? Nope. It's philosophy.
Science also is based on assumptions.Without philosophy, there is no reason to believe that the scientific method is a good means of determining truth.
There is no scientific reason to believe that you ARE a brain in a jar. Start with that. There is no scientific reason to think the easter bunny exists. There's no scientific reason to think humans can fly and turn invisible. That doesn't mean these things are true or possible. You simply don't understand science and how it proves things. Use google. Learn things. Calling science faith based while using a piece of technology that performs a function and came from scientific knowledge is hypocritical and is insulting to the folks that work in the field every week trying to learn things that benefit us all as a society.
But there's no scientific reason to believe that I am anything other than a brain in a jar hooked up to impulses, now, is there?
Communication isn't your specialty is it? Why not explain the point that you claim I am missing instead of making false claims about gravity?
Maybe you don't understand how inductive reasoning works or the fact that it's not even the primary type of reasoning used in science, especially not conclusions. I've told you this numerous times and you pretend it wasn't said.
Read about it. Inductive reasoning isn't the be all end all. Most conclusions are actually derived from deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is only used to think of hypotheses to test. The tests themselves are deductive, so that the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected based on the experiments.
Unbelievable. Newton's laws have been peer reviewed and verified as has evolution.
Your irrelevant one liners do not go against that. Peer review is a error correcting system of verification, so yes, obviously it makes the science more legitimate and less susceptible to corruption. Perfect? Of course not, but light years better than it used to be. Anything with a human element is susceptible to corruption. More peer review = better science. Bottom line.
LMAO! No laws or theories FULLY explain everything about the laws of the universe. Laws are measurements and calculations.
What an asinine statement. Something in science isn't magically false because it doesn't explain everything about everything. I'm sorry but you are grasping for straws at this point trying to support a faulty conclusion. Newton's laws are still true. They weren't wrong. Nice try.
Each post gets more and more dishonest. I didn't make a blanket statement about philosophy. I said that it doesn't prove things objectively and this is true.
You ask me to back up a post and called me "unscientific" and now you are backtracking out of that. I can back up ANYTHING that I claim. I don't make false claims to support religious viewpoints and attack science as you are doing. It's hilarious how badly you seem to hate science and want your view to be right.
Just no. Dentistry DOES have proof. People improve their teeth. You are being ridiculous. Metaphysics is not based on the objective, so it does not have proof. Comparing it to dentistry isn't even close to reality. We know that teeth and cavities are real and cause health problems. We DO NOT know metaphysics to be true. Fail point.
The proof is in the fact that IT WORKS and is used to function 99% of our technology.
You have no clue whatsoever. You would get laughed out of a debate bringing red herrings such as this into it. Science is a method. Science doesn't verify science, it doesn't need to. Science verifies facts, deductively and objectively. Sorry that you don't get it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.
Absolute lie. I've already explained it. Repeating your original statement over and over again to every point I make doesn't make you right.
There is no scientific reason to believe that you ARE a brain in a jar.
You simply don't understand science and how it proves things. Use google. Learn things. Calling science faith based while using a piece of technology that performs a function and came from scientific knowledge is hypocritical and is insulting to the folks that work in the field every week trying to learn things that benefit us all as a society.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I was claiming that, if we live in an artificial reality, the way gravity operates may change next week. That's a true claim.
Sure, deductive reasoning is used in science. I've never denied that. But inductive reasoning is used to arrive that the conclusion that science works and is a valid process. That's what I've been saying, and you've been pretending it wasn't said
The tests are deductive. The *premises* are not (necessarily.)
Sure, now they have been. Not at the time, though. Were they only good science after they were peer-reviewed?
Newtons Laws aren't always true. Some laws, huh?
How is that not a blanket statement?
A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence
You are missing what I am saying. Metaphysics is a category of study like dentistry, or ethics, or civic engineering. You shouldn't say "we have no proof that a category of study is not true." You should instead say "we have no proof that the conclusions of this field of study are true." A field of study is a not something with a true/false value attached to it, it is a field of study, something that exists.
According to your subjective perspective, yes, it does work. You trust your subjective perspective because you have *faith* in your senses, as do most people.
Science does verify facts, but *how are the facts themselves determined?* Through the scientific method. How do we know the scientific method works? Because we observe it. How do we know we observe it? Because we have faith in our senses. That faith can be blind, as I sense it is in your case, or it can be reasoned through with reflection and thought. That's called philosophy.
How do we know the scientific method works? If your answer is "because technology" then what you are saying is "because we perceive it to work," then are you assuming that your senses work. This is an assumption that is based on faith. And that is my point.
So we're at 50/50 odds, eh?
Nope. You simply don't understand philosophy and how it underpins everything we do.
I fail to see how calling science faith-based is insulting. It's true, and if you gave me 15 or 20 minutes with people in a scientific field, they'd agree with me.
You clearly don't believe me. Perhaps that's because I've been doing a poor job explaining myself, or perhaps it's because you've been doing a poor job reading what I've been saying. Either way, let's give this another try. Explain to me, if you can, why you trust your senses. Then you can explain to me why you trust science, which you perceive through your senses.
And if we live on a giant cheesecake, the way lava works may change next week. That's a true claim. LOL.
False. Inductive reasoning is only used to formulate the original hypotheses. It is tested using deductive reasoning, so inductive reasoning is not what determines facts. I guess you didn't read the article I posted.
The tests are what determine facts, not the premises, so once again, you are wrong.
What are you trying to say? Newton's laws are always true.
Both are true statements, and certainly not blanket statements. You said that science was faith based and haven't yet backed that claim up.
Saying, "Science requires faith" is a blanket statement. You should have said, "One part of the scientific method uses inductive reasoning". That would have been an accurate statement. Since faith is not involved in the actual testing phase, you can't claim the conclusions are based on faith, because they are based on experiment. The premise is an educated guess, based on existing facts and data. It isn't just dreamed up, and it is either rejected or accepted based on the results of the test.
Wrong. You made up the phrase "field up study".
Just because a group of people may try to study something does not make it valid or legitimate. You can't study something that you do not know exists.
Field of study is used to reference science, not paranormal investigation or guesses about the nature of reality. Philosophy has no proof of the premises or the conclusions.
It is all inductive reasoning, no deductive at all, unlike science.
It's not subjective because numerous people have scrutinized and verified the results of science. LMAO at claiming faith in my senses.
Again, unless you can objectively prove that what I see isn't really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what we can verify.
Again, if senses are faith based then everything in the history of the universe is faith based.
You are being silly and offering no substance to your claims. IF senses are not real, then you can objectively prove it by doing the experiment I mentioned above.
Can you prove senses are not real?
We don't "perceive" it to work. It DOES work. It got us to the moon, it helped create the device you use to post on this message board. If you have objective evidence that senses are not real, you can make this argument, but since you don't, you are flat out wrong trying to crap on science using pure guesswork. Guesses and what ifs do not go against science, sorry.
You make a lot of wild guesses about things. To go against science, you need science itself.
Wrong. Philosophy tries to explain what cannot be verified by science. It does not objectively underpin ANYTHING.
LMAO! They'd laugh at you.
I don't believe you because you haven't backed up anything you have said or given any valid reasons why we shouldn't trust our own senses.
You are attempting to hijack a conversation about science and turn it into philosophy. That is intellectually dishonest.
Without philosophy, there is no reason to believe that the scientific method is a good means of determining truth.
i beg to disagree. there is a very critical difference between the scientific method and philosophy, the difference between excavating a fossil and writing a post about how fake it is.
if you follow the steps of the scientific method exactly, then it doesnt matter what you believe, you will eventually arrive at the truth. if you follow the steps of philosophy, then it doesnt matter what the truth is, you will eventually arrive at what you believe.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I guess you didn't read what I said, because I didn't disagree with your point that deductive reasoning is used to test a hypothesis and determine facts. What I said before is that inductive reasoning is used to determine that the scientific method is a good way to find facts.
Er...so the premises are not based on facts?
They aren't true at excessive speeds or in high gravity wells...
I have demonstrated it already more than once.
You know what else is based on educated guesses based on existing data? Philosophy.
One part of the scientific method does use inductive reasoning, which means it is built on faith in inductive reasoning.
False. If you were familiar with philosophy, you'd know this was untrue.
Let me get this straight. People you perceive with your senses tell you your sensory perception works, so it must be true?
Why should the burden of proof be on me? I'm not claiming either way. YOU are claiming that reality is real, so unless you can objectively prove that what I see is really what I see, then you have no argument. I go with what I can verify.
How does getting eaten prove reality is real?
No, and I wouldn't want to. But you can't prove that they are real, why is why I am saying you are acting based on faith.
And you haven't given any valid reasons why we should trust our own senses. I didn't bother to use the standard arguments against the senses because I thought they would occur to you, but 1) your senses seem to work when you are in a dream (meaning we might be dreaming all the time) 2) there's no tangible evidence that exists that does not rely on the senses that our senses work (one cannot prove the senses work by using the senses because that's a fallacy) and 3) science (since you're into that) has found that we can deceive the senses through stimulation of the brain. There's no reason to believe that one or more of these things aren't happening to you unless you do some abstract reasoning (philosophy.) Haven't you seen The Matrix.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
if you follow the steps of the scientific method exactly, then it doesnt matter what you believe, you will eventually arrive at the truth.
Deductive reasoning is required to determine facts in science. Inductive reasoning is NOT a requirement. You specifically said that inductive reasoning was required for scientific conclusions. You were wrong. Inductive reasoning is only used at the very beginning before facts are determined to be facts.
They are educated guesses based on known facts and observations. They are then tested to determine if true or not. Science is not reliant on inductive reasoning because it uses DEDUCTIVE to prove things, not inductive.
The laws state that they hold true in the vacuum of space. Plus you failed once again to back your statement up. Please prove what you just claimed and show me where it contradicts the laws.
No, you haven't. You have demonstrated guesswork.
Once again you are flat out wrong. It is not built on inductive reasoning because they use it occasionally to come up with hypotheses to test. Facts are determined with deductive objective reasoning, but you can't seem to grasp this very basic point.
Show me something that can be objectively proven with philosophy then.
You can't prove this either way, so it's pointless to even discuss.
Again, you are making what if statements. You can ask what if a million times, it doesn't matter nor does it affect the validity of science. I don't need to prove reality is real to show that science works. Science stands on its own merit and the huge database of proven working knowledge attained through this method that is actively applied in society.
If it is fake, there will be no real consequences to your action, so you won't really die or get eaten.
Too bad science doesn't work that way. If you cannot prove something objectively, it doesn't hold merit in science, so if you want your statement to apply to science, that is the only way. That is why you must prove it, if you wish to use it as an argument.
Again, you can't prove any of that, so it is irrelevant to science. Give me something you can prove instead of guesses and what if statements. Anybody can guess about anything. Their position holds no merit until objective verification can happen. This is why you must provide the evidence.I don't care about what ifs and neither does science. Proof or it didn't happen.
That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Philosophy is about the love of truth. It's what we do when we decide that truth is a worthwhile thing to pursue. Science is a good way of discovering truth, but it's founded on philosophical presuppositions, as I discuss in my posts with Barcs
Also, a philosophical one. Your philosophical beliefs tell you that philosophy cannot be trusted, but science can. So why do you trust your philosophical views?
i thought the subject was religion, not philosophy. i realize philosophy gives you a larger spectrum to work with in your argument, but...yeah, its in the title.
science makes a deliberate effort to check itself in every way. religion leans on historical folklore. its not a matter of philosophy, its a matter of having the right information and the right equipment. if you witnessed a car accident and were the first to arrive, would you call your priest or an ambulance?
Evidence that reality is real:
1. Each sense verifies the others. Anything I can see, I can also touch, taste, smell or hear to verify. If it's not real, you'd expect discrepancies. Dreaming is not seeing, sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
2. Brain controls the senses. All of the senses are directly controlled by the brain, something that is directly connected to reality and proven to do such things. If you wish to suggest senses and consciousness are external, you must provide evidence of such. If it's all fake or simulated, it wouldn't be controlled by your brain, it would be controlled externally and there would be no need for a brain to physically control everything. This is a big one.
3. Every action has a reaction, no matter how small or insignificant. Something that happened billions of years ago can directly affect what happens today, regardless of your perception. In programming there is no need for things to slowly emerge over billions of years, when you can directly program it all in its current form.
4. Logic and the scientific method works. In a simulated reality based on programming rather than a tangible world, you'd expect discrepancies and limits that do not make sense. When something is verified to work, it continues to work. It doesn't suddenly stop applying. In a simulated reality you expect everything to just work, without validity or methods to test it, and you'd expect the way things work to randomly change.
5. The universe is huge. If programmed or simulated, the programmer was extremely inefficient and wasted tons of code programming irrelevant planets and stars that aren't capable of supporting life. Life is so rare in the universe that programming makes no sense at all. Nobody intentionally makes bulky programming that would slow down the efficiency just for fun.
6. Evolution. If life was programmed, then why would everything have evolved from single celled organisms? That literally makes no sense in a simulated environment where you can program things in their current form instead.
7. The big bang. If life was programmed, why the need for everything to emerge in a big bang and then develop slowly over time? That is the exact opposite of programming. No programmer would waste so much time and code on irrelevant stuff. They would go in with a purpose and achieve exactly that. Why would earth be programmed to go through a bombardment period, and slow formation over time when it could just be popped into existence with a few lines of code?
Reality not being real defies logic.
If you wish to believe it, I have no issue with that, but you cannot use subjectivity to logically argue against objectivity. It is a direct contradiction and completely illogical. To argue against science, you need to use science. That is how objectivity works. If we don't know the answer to something, it means we don't know the answer. What ifs do not over ride objective evidence.
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I'm also referring to the inductive reasoning we use to believe that laws will remain constant.
But inductive reasoning is required. It's why we believe that laws are constants. Without inductive reasoning, we'd have no reason to believe that gravity is always a constant.
I wasn't referring to the vacuum of space.
And you cannot seem to grasp the very basic point that all of this deductive reasoning is based on the inductive reasoning that things will remain the same.
That the laws of nature will not change randomly: that's inductive reasoning.
It's inductive reasoning to say "we've measured the strength of gravity 45 times, so we can plug it into this equation and send a man to the moon because we know that gravity won't randomly change while we're out there." That's inductive reasoning.
I was referring to your assertion that philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning.
But I might perceive that I am dying or being eaten, which sounds unpleasant. You first
So you agree with me that science is based on faith...or don't you? I'm confused.
Ambulance. But would you call an ambulance for an ailment of the soul?
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Not really. If it was a "brain in a jar" type of situation, your nerves would be plugged into computers that would sense what the brain was telling them to do and send false stimuli back to the brain to deceive it.
But you haven't been alive for billions of years. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar set inside a retro-futuristic world created by an eight-legged space monkey.
Logic works as far as we can tell. The scientific method does, but it relies on logic (which, by the by, philosophy also relies on.) Now, personally, I wouldn't expect a simulated reality to just stop working. I'd expect it to be like my computer games. But more importantly, if it did stop working, how would you even perceive that to be the case?
Erm...it's just as likely that the clever person who set this up merely simulated that as a background and then gave us an artificial barrier to exploring it–namely, light speed. It's really hard for us to travel outside of the planet, let alone the solar system, so it's possible that only the solar system and surrounding space is "rendered," if you will, and the background is based on false signals programmed in deceptively.
Or, you could just program in fossils to make things look like there was a evolutionary history. Or, there might not actually be an evolutionary history and scientists are just plain wrong on that one
Well, a smart programer would create an "aged" earth, with fossils, bombardment marks, the remnants of a Big Bang etc without actually having to burn RAM simulating the stuff. Humanity's only been around for a few thousand years. You've only been around for a few decades. This evidence you're spouting off at me might be what the AIs you interact with are programmed to tell you when you're curious, while all the while your brain is sitting in a jar someplace.
To use science to argue against science, as you would have me do, would be illogical.
Name a law that has changed.
False. Gravity is a law and rigorous testing has shown that it is a constant.
Well that's too bad, because that's what the laws refer to. Why didn't you back up the claim I requested?
No, no no and NO. Deductive reasoning is not based on inductive. You are getting further and further from reality with every post.
You would need an example of a law changing to suggest this is possible.
No it's not. It is deductive because it holds true every time and can be confirmed.
Things don't randomly change in the universe.
Keep dodging my questions. Deductive reasoning proves things objectively, so if philosophy doesn't use deductive reasoning then it is not objective. Thanks for playing.
If you can't test it, you can't prove it.
If you can't prove it, you can't use it to argue against the validity of science.
You are definitely confused. Deductive reasoning proves things and you cannot get through the whole scientific method without it.
You can get through it without inductive reasoning.