0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the core true assumption of science is
Quotethe core true assumption of science isWrong! Science is a process, wholly devoid of assumptions, which are human artefacts.
@ dlorde :Lost your tongue ? Guess so , very predictable indeed.
Quote from: cheryl j on 02/10/2013 02:36:58Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable .Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.I said that Nagel did prove that obvious indeniable fact to be true in that book of his, didn't i ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable .Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.
Facts are , per definition, indeniable .
Science is practiced by scientists humans , dude :
But , i was talking about somethingelse , about the core scientific assumption that the universe is intelligible
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/10/2013 18:31:15Quote from: cheryl j on 02/10/2013 02:36:58Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.I said that Nagel did prove that obvious indeniable fact to be true in that book of his, didn't i ?
Quote from: cheryl j on 02/10/2013 02:36:58Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.
Facts are , per definition, indeniable
I think you are confusing the definition of a factual statement with what you believe to be a truthful statement. They are not the same. Factual means something that is verifiable by others. The average distance of the moon from Earth is 900 miles. The average distance of the moon from Earth is 252,088 miles. They are both factual statements, but one is definitely more accurate. I can measure it. You can measure it. You brother Bob can measure it. There are probably "facts" in Nagel's book but I would argue that his proposition in total falls outside of being a verifiable fact. Ironically, despite Nagel's critique of reductionism or materialism (which admittedly I don't agree with), I don't find anything in his other propositions terribly objectionable or alarming. His "natural teleology," or looking for higher order relationships to explain or describe phenomena, is not all that revolutionary. They've been doing that in the mathematics of probability and statistics since the 1800s. Pascal's triangle. Gaussian distribution. You don't always have to reduce every part to its most fundamental components, to make predictions or learn something significant about how objects behave en masse. The weird thing about people in probability and statistics, is they never seem to freak out about why certain mathematical relationships exist, even among random events, or why they pop up again and again in totally unrelated areas. They just say "Oh, good! Now we can make predictions!" Unfortunately, I don't think you will find Nagel quite the ally you were hoping for. To me at least, these higher order relationships sound suspiciously like emergent properties that you are so scornful of. And I say this because I don't know how one would distinguish between a property that emerges from the interactions between objects, and a property that is somehow imposed on them by the universe in which they inhabit. At anyrate, he does not sound like a supporter of your kind of mystical insight into the nature of reality as a scientific method to learn about consciousness, despite his comments about what it is to be a bat. You better stick with Sheldrake. Just my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to be as derisive as usual.
QuoteScience is practiced by scientists humans , dude :Exactly. Don't confuse the singer with the song. I've played some beautiful songs for some rubbish singers in my time, but I wouldn't blame Kern or Handel for their mistakes.
QuoteBut , i was talking about somethingelse , about the core scientific assumption that the universe is intelligibleIt appears to be, at least to the intelligent. But it wouldn't matter much it it wasn't. The "core assumption" is made by philosophers, not practitioners, of science, i.e. by people with no required knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/10/2013 18:34:34@ dlorde :Lost your tongue ? Guess so , very predictable indeed.You've said nothing worth responding to.
There is no such a thing as "science "
QuoteThere is no such a thing as "science "Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money. If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)
Quote from: alancalverd on 03/10/2013 19:39:33QuoteThere is no such a thing as "science "Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money. If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)Don't take my words out of context , please : read what Sheldrake had to say about all that ,i did quote for you, just for your blue eyes .Your understanding or rather misinderstanding of what science is , how it works , and by whom it is actually practiced , is simply ...staggering though : i pity your clients in that regard .
Too much side irrelevant talk and silly denials that say absolutely nothing : an obvious insult to the obvious undeniable facts on the subject:I did say , on many occasions here ,that atheist Nagel's proposed alternative to reductionism is also a false conception of nature , that's obviously doomed to fail as well ,didn't i ?.Besides , it is an obvious and an undeniable fact that reductionism in science is a false conception of nature that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, modern physics themselves ...See what Sheldrake said here above on the subject .An obvious and undeniable fact that has been proven to be true by many scientists , thinkers , philosophers , by the physical sciences themselves , by Nagel, by Sheldrake ....That's not just a statement ,honey : to try to prove to you this fact as being true , is like trying to prove to you that the sun rises from the East ...come on, be serious .Once again, has science proper even proved the "fact " to be true that reality is exclusively biological physical ? come on, don't be an idiot, sorry = absolutely not= never = ever ,simply because nature or reality cannot be a matter of exclusively biological physical processes or physics and chemistry , otherwise they absolutely cannot account for such processes such as life , consciousness, human cognition .....let alone their origins evolution and emergence = exclusive reductionist or even non-reductionist naturalism can certainly not explain consciousness, life , human cognition ...no way .Science proper itself will therefore reject materialism as untrue and untenable ...no doubt about that .Quantum physics , for example, have already been challenging materialism as being untrue and untenable since the 1920's ...I can elaborate some more on this , and can even provide you with some relevant quotes from prominent scientists '. thinkers' work on the subject ...concerning the obvious undeniable evidence that proves materialism to be false , beyond any shadow of a doubt :But , that's so an obvious and an undeniable fact that it would be an utter waste of time to try to discuss it any further , simply because it's so obvious that materialism is false , and is therefore challenged by the mental side of nature , by consciousness, life ...their emergence origins and evolution ..............If you cannot see all that , if you cannot see obvious things and facts as such , there is no point in going any further with this discussion,for obvious reasons, i am afraid .Just try to read that Nagel's book, that Sheldrake's book at least then :I am not gonna waste my time to try to make you get rid of your denials , that's neither my job to do , nor a relevant to this discussion thing to do either , that's your job and responsibility you gotta deal with , not mine .
"I cannot be bothered by people who do not accept my brilliance without question!"
....the metaphysical method should not be used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scienmtific analysis and convincing argument
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/10/2013 20:12:49Quote from: alancalverd on 03/10/2013 19:39:33QuoteThere is no such a thing as "science "Please don't tell my clients. They think it is what I do all day, every day, for money. If they thought I was just trotting out vapid -isms and not solving problems by the application of science, they might not pay me (though I could make a living as a politician, priest or management consultant)Don't take my words out of context , please : read what Sheldrake had to say about all that ,i did quote for you, just for your blue eyes .Your understanding or rather misinderstanding of what science is , how it works , and by whom it is actually practiced , is simply ...staggering though : i pity your clients in that regard .What makes you think he has blue eyes?
...or that I don't understand what I do for a living? As I thought, DonQ is a philosopher, that is, a person whose mission is to infect others with his ignorance - a sort of intellectual Munchausen by Proxy. A miserable calling, doomed forever to tell other people that they "just don't understand", but unlike teenagers, philosophers never grow up or acquire the humility and wisdom that science - or even normal life - confer on others.