User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: LOL

  1. #11
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    When I say "damn true", I mean so likely that it would be completely irrational to believe otherwise unless you can back up your belief with something stronger.

    From your posts you've made the following claims:

    #1 "Because religion isn't about constructing logically coherent systems, but actually tries to talk about reality, those systems can't actually be judged on their coherency."

    Yes, they can, and I'm not quite sure why you believe otherwise. Science tries to talk about reality, so why can it be judged by the rules of logic (coherent, good reasoning) while religion can't?

    #2 Saying that reality isn't logically coherent follows from your bad reasoning and that we can use the same reasoning to analyze what Chris said about the believers.

    You see, the bee/wasp whatever might not seem logically coherent at first, but as soon as you take in more and more data and refine your thinking about the subject (see HilbertSpace's posts), then you'll realize that it is indeed logically coherent.

    As for the rest: I know, I know, and you really don't need to explain this stuff to me.

  2. #12
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    Yes, they can, and I'm not quite sure why you believe otherwise. Science tries to talk about reality, so why can it be judged for by the rules of logic (coherent, good reasoning) while religion can't?
    Science is empirical, not logical. It's also judged empirically; testability/observation is one of the prequisites for a theory to be scientific, so mere logic won't cut it... We're not living in the scholastic age, you know.
    #2 Saying that reality isn't logically coherent follows from your bad reasoning and that we can use the same reasoning to analyze what Chris said about the believers.

    You see, the bee/wasp whatever might not seem logically coherent at first, but as soon as you take in more and more data and refine your thinking about the subject (see HilbertSpace's posts), then you'll realize that it is indeed logically coherent.
    No, he's argueing from non-evident premises (genetical significance). Just because a theory has explanatory power doesn't mean it actually is the case. It's likely, but not irrefutably proven (Paradigmatic revolutions, anyone?). Science provides models, it doesn't tell about reality-in-itself.

    As for the rest: I know, I know, and you really don't need to explain this stuff to me.
    Looking at the way you explain science, no, apparently you don't. But since you don't want me explaining that stuff, here's a wiki (You could also just read Poppers Conjectures and Refutations and Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have.):
    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  3. #13
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Yes, science is empirical, but it's also logical. Yes, he's arguing from non-evident premises, but since when is bullshitting (speaking from ignorance) reasonable? As for what he said not being irrefutably proven, I do believe that I've already spoken on this: Nothing can be irrefutably proven. Yes, science provides models, but these models do a fine job of making predictions about reality. Does religion do this? Is religion reasonable? Are you reasonable?

    You can make irrelevant objections and talk in circles all you like, but I simply don't have time to read them.

    Since I'm a humble person I'm going to recommend that you spend more time to HilbertSpace and less time posting in this thread.

  4. #14
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    Yes, science is empirical, but it's also logical. Yes, he's arguing from non-evident premises, but since when is bullshitting (speaking from ignorance) reasonable? And, yes, I am saying that being logically coherent is a prerequisite for being reasonable. I doubt that you can refute that. As for what he said not being irrefutably proven, I do believe that I've already spoken on this: Nothing can be irrefutably proven. Yes, science provides models, but these models do a fine job of making predictions about reality.
    Again, paradigmatic revolutions. *Yawn*. Newtonian science also did a fine job of making predictions... Untill some observations refuted the entire paradigm.

    Does religion do this? Is religion reasonable?
    No, because it doesn't have a testable structure... It's not built into it. It does, however, make claims about reality, and instead of science (wich is immanent, and has a bottom up approach), it has a trancendent, meaning top-down approach. It's not testable, because we don't have access to those layers of reality.

    Are you reasonable?
    Resorting to ad hominems, are we? You're not that good at argueing, are you?

    You can make irrelevant objections and talk in circles all you like, but I simply don't have time to read them.
    Poor you.
    Since I'm a humble person I'm going to recommend that you spend more time to HilbertSpace and less time posting in this thread.
    Yessir, thankyousir. :yim_rolling_on_the_
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  5. #15
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Looking at the way you explain science, no, apparently you don't. But since you don't want me explaining that stuff, here's a wiki (You could also just read Poppers Conjectures and Refutations and Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have.):
    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    From that very link: It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.

    In other words, LOGIC.

  6. #16
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Until some observations refuted the entire paradigm.
    Yes, taking in more information and refining thinking, eh? Didn't I already mention this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    No, because it doesn't have a testable structure... It's not built into it. It does, however, make claims about reality, and instead of science (wich is immanent, and has a bottom up approach), it has a trancendent, meaning top-down approach. It's not testable, because we don't have access to those layers of reality.
    Then why are you arguing with me? You're agreeing with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Resorting to ad hominems, are we?
    I use ad hominems when someone proves themselves to be incapable of arguing by constantly making objections that can refuted with the very thing that they're trying to object to/or points that have already been made. I'm not even sure if you have a conclusion to your argument, and if you think you do then I'm not sure if you know what it is.

  7. #17
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    From that very link: It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
    *Yawn*

    Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, pointed out that a solid theory is hallmarked by a few predictions wich could in principle be refuted by observation
    -Stephen Hawking, a brief history of time, p15 Dutch edition
    A theory wich can't be refuted through observation, is unscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue for a theory (like some people think it is), rather, it's a vice.
    -Karl Popper, conjectures and refutations, p78, Dutch edition
    There are theories, wich still are being defended by it's proponents, even if they are shown to be untrue. They do this by, for example, introducing ad hoc helphypotheses or by ad hoc reinterpretation so that the relevant evidence isn't refuted anymore.
    -Ibid
    In other words: Observation. I trust primary sources more than wikipedia, sorry.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  8. #18
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    Then why are you arguing with me? You're agreeing with me.
    It's called 'conceding on certain points'. You really aren't used to this, aren't you? It's called 'philosophy'. Yes. It sometimes is this argumentative. No one ever said that it wasn't.
    I use ad hominems when someone proves themselves to be incapable of arguing by constantly making objections that can refuted with the very thing that they're trying to object to/or points that have already been made.
    ... Please rephrase that. Thanks.
    I'm not even sure if you have a conclusion to your argument, and if you think you do then I'm not sure if you know what it is.
    Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And no, I don't have any point to make. I'm argueing for arguments sake. I like to argue. I'm not even defending religion, here. Believe it or not, this whole process actually helps in strengthening YOUR case (since you decided to defend the propositions being made by that guy in the op), I'm just thoroughly enjoying myself.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  9. #19
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Once again, you haven't made a valid objection to anything that I've said. In fact, you're agreeing with me again.

    I don't know why I have to explain this: The very first sentence of the page you linked me to says that science is based on observation, empiricism, measurable evidence, AND that it is subject to specific principles of reasoning. Logic = principles of reasoning. Science is subject to logic. None of your quotes addresses this fact.

    You're the one who came in here all high and mighty making an unreasonable objection to an invisible argument in a video that I posted because I thought that it would cause some people to LOL.

    EDIT:

    AND WHY, did you edit the rest of that into your post after I had already replied. It just makes me look redundant.

  10. #20
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post

    I don't know why I have to explain this: The very first sentence of the page you linked me to says that science is based on observation, empiricism, measurable evidence, AND that it is subject to specific principles of reasoning. Logic = principles of reasoning. Science is subject to logic. None of your quotes addresses this fact.
    No it isn't. Principles of reasoning are epistemological, not just logical.
    Einstein himself singled out epistemology as a whole, not just logic in his philosophy of science.

    Einstein's Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    Besides, I never said that logic wasn't a part of the entire thing. I'm trying to point out that observation is waaayyy more important, since logic alone would lead to rather scholastical notions if it was used to judge scientifical theories... And YOU said that scientific theories could be judged on the merits of logic, wich sad to say, no it can't (I'm lamenting the fall of idealism, here). Scientifical theories are judged on testability, while epistemology and logic are used in the construction of theories; and theories are judged on their (experimental) testability, not the finding of said theories. A theory is called 'unscientific' if it can't be tested; and this all is an empirical procedure. But the finding of theories from a paradigm could be called an epistemic process, yes.
    As for the burden of proof, you're the one who came in here all high and mighty making an unreasonable objection to an invisible argument in a video that I posted because I thought that it would cause some people to LOL.
    Yes, I did. Fun, no? It's called philosophy, like I said. It's not just about exchanging opinions, wich is a rather popphilosophical approach.
    And this thread indeed turned out to be quitte fun, yes.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

Similar Threads

  1. LOL.
    By rainfall in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 09:55 PM
  2. Now you can "lol" anything with lolcat builder!
    By Tigerlily in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 02:05 PM
  3. I'm a total n00b lol
    By machintruc in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Monkeys sexually harassing women? (no, not dating lol)
    By Sahara in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 12:19 PM
  5. Ninja Warrior! It's Like A Real Live Ninja Camp,lol.
    By ladypinkington in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO