User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

  1. #11
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    i'm with the article on this one - computer science is a technological science not a natural one, it's discoveries are limited to human ingenuity, and most of that ingenuity expands on established protocols, not in the face of them. this is why most coding languages in common use are either specialized or higher level variations of C, such as javascript or python respectively, and C is still holding the throne of the all-father since the 70's.

    the higher level of coding we need to do and the more existing systems we need to interact with, the more difficult it would be to make a switch, so even if someone does rewrite a competition for assembler that somehow gains an edge, at this point the edge would have to be so great to convince anyone into making the switch that it's unlikely, and getting less likely by the decade. maybe quantum computing or something like it will do that, but i think its more likely we'll figure out a way to port assembler to it, or some hybrid in which we can make requests from an assembler based command to a quantum processing unit, rather then build a whole new basis for coding. to bring down C you might need a computer science apocalypse.

    you are right regarding natural science, but technological sciences are actually a lot closer to traditions then they are to natural sciences: in religion two, it depends on the philosophical innovations of the members within it in order to change, and since they are biased towards their traditions, it gets less likely the older the philosophy gets. it is a growing tradition of how to apply a science more then it is a science, and 1's and 0's have so far successfully remained 1's and 0's.

  2. #12
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Religion is falsifiable.

    Wait 'til Allah comes and see if we don't have an observation.
    No, that's not what 'falsifiable' means.

    To be pedantic, a hypothesis is falsifiable if it entails a proposition which contradicts another reporting a logically possible observational event. The statement 'Allah will come' is obviously unfalsifiable, since it doesn't specify when, where, or how to look. No matter how long we wait, it's always possible that we just haven't waited long enough. In other words, the statement 'Allah will come' is consistent with any possible set of observational reports, i.e. it's unfalsifiable.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #13
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    No, that's not what 'falsifiable' means.

    To be pedantic, a hypothesis is falsifiable if it entails a proposition which contradicts another reporting a logically possible observational event. The statement 'Allah will come' is obviously unfalsifiable, since it doesn't specify when, where, or how to look. No matter how long we wait, it's always possible that we just haven't waited long enough. In other words, the statement 'Allah will come' is consistent with any possible set of observational reports, i.e. it's unfalsifiable.

    What an utter waste of effort, I hope your ego feels good.

  4. #14
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    What an utter waste of effort, I hope your ego feels good.
    Oh, that was a "joke".
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #15
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    You'd think that religious dogma must remain the same because logically that is the purpose of dogma, but historically this is not what happens, and it especially didn't happen in Catholicism.

    Throughout history and still today, Catholicism has what are called 'ecumenical councils' which are essentially the high ranking 'bosses' which decide what the doctrines and practices are.

    The reason we have so many Orthodox splits in Catholicism is because in a preexisting church, the ecumenical council decided to reinterpret things and a part of the church didn't agree with it, so it split off - so they really were reinventing the dogma. It wasn't that people decided to be different and split off, it was the ecumenical council itself deciding to be different and some people disagreed with it.

    Or put more plainly, splits happened because they decided to change the core dogma, and not from the core dogma remaining the same and people deciding they want to make a new one.

    Edit: also interestingly, the way they seem to get away with claiming that dogma doesn't change, is by limiting what they call dogma. Most of the doctrine is not technically dogma and there is room for interpretation. Basically the divine infallible truths never change, so they are just really careful about what they say is a divine infallible truth.

    However, in the past when the council denounced a heresy they made the denunciation a dogma - which basically means "this was always true and is now divinely revealed to be dogma. We didn't call it dogma before, but now we do, so no more arguments about it"

  6. #16
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Oh, that was a "joke".

    Anyways, your assessment of the word "falsifiable" was still incorrect. It simply means that a logic set has a way to be overturned.

    Stating God is omnipotent but will never expose himself to our world is non-falsifiable.

    God coming and wreaking havoc on the land would falsify atheism. Got it?

  7. #17
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Anyways, your assessment of the word "falsifiable" was still incorrect. It simply means that a logic set has a way to be overturned.
    No, that's really not what it 'simply means'. Seriously, go read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In his parlance, a hypothesis is falsifiable if, in conjunction with some set of initial conditions, its consequence class contains a 'basic statement', i.e. a statement corresponding to some observational event. A 'logic set', by which I suppose you mean a set of propositions, may be 'overturned', in the sense of criticised or refuted, by means other than falsification, so what falsifiability simply means is just not what you describe.

    Stating God is omnipotent but will never expose himself to our world is non-falsifiable.
    What?

    First, 'stating' is not falsifiable because only propositions (or statements exemplifying propositions) are falsifiable. Stating is not a description of the facts. It can be true that someone made a statement, and a proposition that someone is stating may be true, but stating itself is an action not a proposition. Second, while it's true that a theory positing an omnipotent God who cannot, in principle, be observed is unfalsifiable, that is true of anything that cannot, in principle, be observed, omnipotent God or invisible teapot. Third, practically nobody, with the possible exception of deists, actually hold such a theory of God; it's such a weird example.

    God coming and wreaking havoc on the land would falsify atheism. Got it?
    Atheism makes a specific prediction about every moment, i.e. that God will not appear, whether throwing lightning bolts from the sky or handing out free candy. Of course, most theists believe that atheism has, in fact, been falsified. That is, God has appeared and we have corroborating evidence in sources such as The Bible.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  8. #18
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    @reason

    You are obviously a person with a mind leagues beyond me, for I hardly have the attention span to get past for first paragraph. I am forced to withdraw and admit defeat.

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538

    Enculturation

    Over the millennia Catholicism has adopted the culture of those it wishes to convert. Catholics call this enculturation.

    So for instance Catholicism adopted the culture of pagans as part of their conversion, and interesingly, on meeting the Western Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, Catholicism adopted the culture of the Enlightenment. In particular Catholicism adopted the doctrine of Faith and Reason in imitation of the Enlightenment practice of evidence and reason.

    However there is a catch - Catholicism only applies reason to faith.

    And so Catholics can claim that they don't believe anything that is unreasonable.

    In effect it is sleight-of-hand to gain the kudos of the Enlightenment and science without applying evidence and reason to Catholicism itself.

Similar Threads

  1. Instincts vs Knowledge
    By Tessertime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-23-2012, 11:08 AM
  2. How does the level of scientific knowledge of the public hurt or benefit society?
    By Octarine in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 06:55 AM
  3. Intuition Bias Vs. Knowledge
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-17-2011, 07:39 AM
  4. Scientific Laws vs. Human Laws
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 10:34 PM
  5. Scientific vs. Socratic Method: the winner is?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 12:52 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