Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2014, 11:25 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  ...
This is why your "science" is bullshit. This stupid belief that you know better than everyone else. Everything you have said in this thread has been double talk.

Could we keep this thread civil, please. I'd rather we didn't end up in The Melee.

Challenge the ideas not the person.

I'm tempted to say "challenge the tools not the fools" but the latter would mainly apply to me, I think.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do you ask that? Do you need a dispensation from a priest in white labcoat? Tongue
This is why your "science" is bullshit. This stupid belief that you know better than everyone else. Everything you have said in this thread has been double talk.
I don't contradict science, I just recognize which questions are NOT within its scope, except for some accidental corrections or confirmations. If you know any, tell me.
Science is derived from philosophy, so there is no logical reason why Mathilda should ask that question. However, there are sociological reasons if scientists are seen as sort of a priests or authorities in modern society, which I dare to say they are. But in reality, they are just artisans within their own fields and instruments. Scientific fields are NOT general disciplines. The only general discipline is philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 12:56 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is why your "science" is bullshit. This stupid belief that you know better than everyone else. Everything you have said in this thread has been double talk.
I don't contradict science, I just recognize which questions are NOT within its scope, except for some accidental corrections or confirmations. If you know any, tell me.
Science is derived from philosophy, so there is no logical reason why Mathilda should ask that question. However, there are sociological reasons if scientists are seen as sort of a priests or authorities in modern society, which I dare to say they are. But in reality, they are just artisans within their own fields and instruments. Scientific fields are NOT general disciplines. The only general discipline is philosophy.

No, science is based on empirically repeatable tests to determine the nature of the universe. Philosophy is the pursuit of getting paid to drunkenly ramble on.

*Edit: My Bad Tongue

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
06-06-2014, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 12:38 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 10:40 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Luminon, is there any physicist in the world that finds it useful to think that logic is the way that energy spreads through space-time and that logic is a basic property of nature?
Why do you ask that? Do you need a dispensation from a priest in white labcoat? Tongue
There is no reason why they should, they don't need it to do physics, each field of science has its own language, instruments and criteria of success.

So this may all be correct as far as you are concerned but is it actually useful for anything other than getting into arguments with other philosophers?

And if not, then why do you make the bold claim that this is the nature of reality despite not being able to back this assertion up with evidence?

If you make claims about reality then you need to back it up with evidence. To do that properly you need to follow the scientific method. The fact that you state that your musings are for philosophers only means that we can dismiss what you say as not being of interest or of relevance.

So I shall stick with my original assertion. Logic and Maths are tools that do not perfectly fit reality and universal truths do not exist. You cannot define what a universal truth is. You cannot falsify a hypothesis stating that a universal truth exists. You cannot test for universal truths or provide any sort of reproducible experiment based on them. I'd go so far as to say that the idea that a universal truth exists is incompatible with the scientific literature.

You quote Occam's razor, I'll quote Hitchen's razor.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
06-06-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No science is based on empirically repeatable tests to determine the nature of the universe. Philosophy is the pursuit of getting paid to drunkenly ramble on.


OK that was more succinctly put than what I said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
06-06-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't contradict science...

Oh, my arse you don't...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:42 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No science is based on empirically repeatable tests to determine the nature of the universe. Philosophy is the pursuit of getting paid to drunkenly ramble on.


OK that was more succinctly put than what I said.

But I think that a well placed comma would have made it actually true.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
06-06-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 12:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:42 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  OK that was more succinctly put than what I said.

But I think that a well placed comma would have made it actually true.

Drinking Beverage

"No, science", indeed.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 12:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:42 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  OK that was more succinctly put than what I said.

But I think that a well placed comma would have made it actually true.

Drinking Beverage

Yeah I noticed that when reading it out loud to blokey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 12:55 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 11:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No science is based on empirically repeatable tests to determine the nature of the universe. Philosophy is the pursuit of getting paid to drunkenly ramble on.
Both empiricism and science require philosophy to define them and prove them by the first principles. Have you ever heard of Sextus Empiricus or "natural philosophy"? Drinking Beverage
Many people here call themselves skeptics. Skeptics were a philosophical school. We use philosophy all the time without realizing it. Philosophy is the study of what should be generally self-evident, if people didn't believe in gods, governments and ideologies.

(06-06-2014 11:39 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  So this may all be correct as far as you are concerned but is it actually useful for anything other than getting into arguments with other philosophers?
The same could be said about the usefulness of theoretical physics and high-level mathematics. Things don't look useful until they provide you a terabyte hard drive that fits into your tablet for an affordable price.
You want some good things? Well, how do you determine what is good or bad? Only through philosophy. Philosophy is the discipline of researching the good and evil, true and false. If you think the law is a useful discipline, then know that "legal science" is a misshapen image of what philosophy should do, it is based on "natural law" (technical legal term) that is an euphemism for philosophy. Justice is a philosophical concept.

(06-06-2014 11:39 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  And if not, then why do you make the bold claim that this is the nature of reality despite not being able to back this assertion up with evidence?

If you make claims about reality then you need to back it up with evidence. To do that properly you need to follow the scientific method. The fact that you state that your musings is for philosophers only means that we can dismiss what you say as not being of interest or of relevance.

You can think of philosophical evidence as verbal mathematics.
I already have evidence, I make rational statements about reality. The evidence is in rational method, which means checking if the logic holds, providing counter-arguments and such. As long as I make true, necessary, general and objective statements, they are self-evident, they are principles. Principle is a proof in itself, until proven otherwise, like an axiom in mathematics.

(06-06-2014 11:39 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  So I shall stick with my original assertion. Logic and Maths are tools that do not perfectly fit reality and universal truths do not exist. You cannot define what a universal truth is. You cannot falsify a hypothesis stating that a universal truth exists. You cannot test for universal truths or provide any sort of reproducible experiment based on them. I'd go so far as to say that the idea that a universal truth exists is incompatible with the scientific literature.

You quote Occam's razor, I'll quote Hitchen's razor.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Logic is a classical philosophical discipline. Mathematics is a sui generis rational science, derived from logic.
We can test for universal truths, if they are very, very general, such as "language has a potential to convey meaning". Try to say otherwise and the words themselves will prove you wrong. It sounds trivial, like "put a square peg into square hole", but the history of human culture is the history of denying logic and reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: