Scientism

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

05 Oct 2010, 11:14 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, due to the possibility of error, it is thereby impossible to make correct observations?

I didn't say that, I just said that it isn't a good observer like I'm not a good speller. I can spell most things but I get stuck now and then.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Oct 2010, 11:21 pm

Jookia wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, due to the possibility of error, it is thereby impossible to make correct observations?

I didn't say that, I just said that it isn't a good observer like I'm not a good speller. I can spell most things but I get stuck now and then.

True, you didn't say that, although by saying nothing to the contrary you left it open allowing for the audience to, correctly or, in this case, incorrectly, infer an extrapolation of a sort along the lines.

The human mind is an excellent tool, and after studying chemistry and physics, if you grasp the concepts of these subjects, your accuracy in observation of the natural world will thereby be greatly enhanced. However, prior to understanding the operation of things from a physical or chemical perspective you can still hone your ability to observe the world around you by thinking about what you see. Instead of looking for arbitrary patterns, try to seek out the reasons of why things behave as they do and use the process of elimination to help determine which causes are most likely.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Oct 2010, 2:43 am

Jookia wrote:

The human brain isn't a good observer.

You mean it is not a perfect observer? It is good enough to have maintained our species for the last 200,000 years or so. Which is all that matters. Nature does not care how smart we are or how accurate we are. Nature cares about how successful we are at reproducing our kind.

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Oct 2010, 2:46 am

Orwell wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

One of the main reasons philosophy lacks "practical" achievements is because once any field of discourse has been conceptually clarified to such a degree where one can meaningfully study it, it becomes a "science". Science is so great because it steals the end products of philosophy!

Science doesn't steal from philosophy. It rescues ideas from the negligent custody of addle-brained musers and nurtures them to reach their full potential.

Word!

ruveyn

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

06 Oct 2010, 6:39 am

Jookia wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, due to the possibility of error, it is thereby impossible to make correct observations?

I didn't say that, I just said that it isn't a good observer like I'm not a good speller. I can spell most things but I get stuck now and then.

But a good enough observer to invent things like computers that let you post on the internet that we are not good observers.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Oct 2010, 7:10 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Jookia wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

So, due to the possibility of error, it is thereby impossible to make correct observations?

I didn't say that, I just said that it isn't a good observer like I'm not a good speller. I can spell most things but I get stuck now and then.

But a good enough observer to invent things like computers that let you post on the internet that we are not good observers.

Oughtn't that be something like, "But a [person was a] good enough observer to invent things[,] like computers[,] that let you post on the internet that we are not good observers."?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Oct 2010, 8:27 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

If you observe something, it exists.

Unless you are hallucinating.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

06 Oct 2010, 8:33 am

Orwell wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

If you observe something, it exists.

Unless you are hallucinating.

Even a hallucination exists in the mind of the person hallucinating.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Oct 2010, 9:27 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

Orwell wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

If you observe something, it exists.

Unless you are hallucinating.

Even a hallucination exists in the mind of the person hallucinating.

All things for discourse exist only in the mind of the observer. There may be mental patterns that are congruent with physical interactions and some patterns, such as most derived from religion, that have very little if any congruence to physical reality. But they all are mental patterns.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Oct 2010, 9:35 am

Sand wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

Orwell wrote:

wavefreak58 wrote:

If you observe something, it exists.

Unless you are hallucinating.

Even a hallucination exists in the mind of the person hallucinating.

So what? Don't stop short, please continue to your formal fallacy.

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Oct 2010, 6:08 am

DeaconBlues wrote:

"Cogito ergo sum"? "I think, therefore I am"?

I must start with an axiom: What I observe is reality. If this axiom is false, then nothing can ever be known, and this conversation is even more pointless than it seems.

Taking this axiom, I can observe that my body has physical existence. Further, there are other bodies with physical existence, which seem to be able to communicate concepts with this body.

"I"? Define "I", please, using rigorous terminology. Without a solid definition of what "I" am, anything else said on the subject is mere opinion.

For that matter, please define "think". Is the electrochemical process occurring within the mass of tissue in "my" skull truly a process of consciousness, or is it just colloidal chemistry run amok?

As you can see, in the absence of anything even vaguely resembling a rigorous definition of terms, "Cogito ergo sum" is nothing more than a supposition, with absolutely no empirical evidence behind it. Certainly not a rigorous truth on the order of Newton's Laws of Motion...

Your first mistake is assuming that your senses are an observation at the same level of your thoughts. They aren't.

Your second mistake is believing I'd fall for such an obvious dictionary trap. this isn't the first time I've been in an internet debate, you know. I'm not going to transcribe the dictionary for you. You know full well what the concept of self and thought are.

ChrisVulcan
Deinonychus

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 361
Location: United States

07 Oct 2010, 2:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Yes and no.

Yes, because the best way that we can understand the world around us is to look at every available piece of evidence and come to reasonable conclusions.

No, because even our best interpretations of the evidence isn't 100% accurate. Part of the beauty of science is that it is a constantly evolving phenomenon, but the added effect is that information can become outdated in a fairly short period of time.

My conclusion: draw your own conclusions. Don't believe something because your (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc) told you so, and don't believe something just because a teacher or scientist told you so.

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

Could you clarify the question?

_________________
Well, I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I suddenly thought, "Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish. I think I'll kill the Fuhrer." Who's with me?

Watch Doctor Who!

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

07 Oct 2010, 4:18 pm

Hey, Tensu, you're the one who wanted to debate a philosophical question as if it were scientific. The sciences are all about precise definitions and repeatable experiments. If you want to discuss "Cogito ergo sum" as regards the sciences, any terms with multiple meanings must be rigorously defined or the conversation is meaningless. Which I guess is pretty much the definition of "philosophy" in its modern sense - "meaningless discussion with ill-defined terms."

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Oct 2010, 7:42 pm

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

Could you clarify the question?

Well, what I mean is that if your conclusion is that we draw our own conclusions, then can we conclude that your conclusion is wrong and that we shouldn't draw our own conclusion?

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Oct 2010, 7:47 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:

Hey, Tensu, you're the one who wanted to debate a philosophical question as if it were scientific.

No, I never asked that. I asked you to disprove something. something can be debunked without killing the thread by forcing me to transcribe definition after definition for you. You know exactly what we mean when we say "thought" and "I". don't pretend like you don't for the sake of killing the thread.

Of course we'll probably just end up killing the thread fighting about this...

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Oct 2010, 12:38 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

Could you clarify the question?

Well, what I mean is that if your conclusion is that we draw our own conclusions, then can we conclude that your conclusion is wrong and that we shouldn't draw our own conclusion?

Well, if you draw your own conclusion that you shouldn't draw your own conclusions, you have then done something you shouldn't have done.

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Scientism Post Reply New Topic

Scientism