103Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIs the scientific method the only way to truth?
August 3rd, 2013, 11:21 AM
Is the scientific method the only way to truth?
Science isn't about "truth". I'm not sure what is. Perhaps it depends what you mean by "truth".
The scientific method is simply the most logical and simplified way of ruling out explanations for a phenomenon. It doesn't seek truth, it just seeks to offer the best explanation with current technology and knowledge.
The only way to truth would be to be God.
Science is just a practical, clumsy instrument.
All stand equally mean before the true master, which would be God.
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
I would like to add that it offers the most elegant and natural explanations (i.e. without evoking one or more unnecessary and/or supernatural entities).
I am glad to see you used the irrealis mood to indicate a counterfactual conditional there, as we are discussing science.
I mean God as an abstract concept, in this case being an all-knowing and ever-present consciousness.I am glad to see you used the irrealis mood to indicate a counterfactual conditional there, as we are discussing science.
No man of any belief can verify from himself the true foundations of supposed existence.
Only a being outside reality or the whole of reality in itself would have any chance to discover its true underpinnings. A part of a whole can never verify the organization of the whole. It is and will always be limited by its own place and viewpoint in the whole. Thus, only God, as an abstract concept, would have any chance of discovering truth. That man tries to make assumptions and weigh them for himself has not necessarily to do with truth. Thus, science becomes a clumsy instrument aimed at always fettering about to find what coincides with man's nature and what he finds agreeable permeated with the blindness and imperfection of every man. In that way, the part must bow to the whole every time, because only the whole can understand every parts' place in the whole and the relation between parts. In that way, the only way to truth is to be a God. Man has a poor tool in science.
Yes right , But it is the most suitable way to find & judge truth and reality based on available information
In our knowledge we can say it is most efficient way to observe reality with limited physical capacity .
Can you show that's true?
Can you show that god exists?All stand equally mean before the true master, which would be God.
Now, this is true. I mean, we cannot even make computers that work or an expansive internet. We cannot use defined properties and principles to make amazing strides in digital storage space... We cannot vaccinate children essentially eliminating polio, bubonic plague or small pox.
Truth™ is a funny thing, eh? It often appears that everyone has their own version of it.
Everyone also has their own version of God.
The Scientific Method is not about Truth™. It is about modeling the universe in order to study it and then testing that model for accuracy.
I disagree, some are clearly more mean than others. And how can something be clumsy and practical at the same time?
Okay.
Um wait. If you meant "god as an abstract concept" why did you then proceed to define it?in this case being an all-knowing and ever-present consciousness.
I'll go even further: No man of any belief (or lack of same) can verify the true foundations of existence 1.No man of any belief can verify from himself the true foundations of supposed existence.
With the slight problem of course that being outside reality precludes communication of that knowledge to anyone "inside" reality.Only a being outside reality or the whole of reality in itself would have any chance to discover its true underpinnings.
And defining a "being" as "the whole of reality" tends to stretching the definition of being a little too far.
An abstract concept doesn't, and can't, do anything.Thus, only God, as an abstract concept, would have any chance of discovering truth.
Wordy 2 unmitigated crap.That man tries to make assumptions and weigh them for himself has not necessarily to do with truth. Thus, science becomes a clumsy instrument aimed at always fettering about to find what coincides with man's nature and what he finds agreeable permeated with the blindness and imperfection of every man. In that way, the part must bow to the whole every time, because only the whole can understand every parts' place in the whole and the relation between parts. In that way, the only way to truth is to be a God. Man has a poor tool in science.
1 Currently: this may or may not hold true forever.
2 And ungrammatical.
The scientific method found root in Ancient Egypt care of many detractions from a grave site. Like, "now lets explain it our way". That's history. If science can't find truth, maybe there is a sun God?
Could you restate that in English please?
No, only arguments can be made with supporting theory. Man is limited, he is only connected to the very specific points of the Universe that he touches. I cannot prove it as that would require omniscience. Man as a part of reality can never understand reality in its whole. His assumptions are blind and lead nowhere but to his own self - this self is always disconnected from large parts of reality. Man can never verify anything finally and unquestionably because he will always be blind to certain things and thus, he can make no judgement of the whole (the Universe f.ex.) which is needed to rightly discern its parts from other parts.Can you show that's true?
No. It would not be needed either in my opinion as both God and Truth are concepts really in this concern. Man does not even know if a thing as truth exists - he must only assume so as if he doesn't, he can make no ground towards his own imperfect, understanding of his own self. Man must always assume or assume nothing. For whatever reason, man (as well as other animals) favor to assume generally.Can you show that god exists?
Who's to judge who are higher or lower towards the eternal and the definite reality - a man or God? A man can only act from his own self - not the entire cosmos which would rightly judge the part in relation to the whole. What's better? A fish that can swim or a bird that can fly? A baby that dies soon after birth or a man that lives to be a hundred years old? To speak in metaphorical language, the foot of a dog can only judge from itself - it cannot see anything else of the dog that does not border on the foot and to which it has no relation, so it has no place to speak of the dog as one and cannot put itself, the foot, in relation to the whole dog or to other parts of the dog. In less metaphorical language, man has the same problem and cannot speak of himself (or others) from any other viewpoint than himself or put his own place in the cosmos down. Thus, he will always assume despite his blindness. Only a perfect vision, abstractly, could see truth. Man's blindness does always lead him to assume without being able to verify anything from a point outside his own blindness. One can just see how limited man is in time and space. He can hardly know what is going on in another room in a building than the one he is in, much less the whole cosmos and all its foundation. No man can escape this blindness and as such, all men stand equally mean before the imagined higher consciousness, reality itself and the supposed truth and no man can from himself verify anything of the whole but only act from his part, which is necessarily blind. The truth, God in a sense, could render any man's opinion invalid in a blink if it were to come down on us. No man can even verify his own existence other than to assume from his own self. Not even his own ignorance can he verify, because there are possible alternatives that he cannot disprove because of his inherit fragmented vision. Only the whole, with perfect vision, could describe its parts, and only a conscious being (in any manner) that stands outside the whole could put the whole in relation to other things and thereby understand the whole as one unit. Regardless of whether the only opposite to reality is nothing.I disagree, some are clearly more mean than others. And how can something be clumsy and practical at the same time?
By clumsy and practical, I only mean that it enforces man's flaws and mistakes and by practical that it has no other option than to be based on immediate, basic concerns.
The scientific method began how And when?Could you restate that in English please?
Is that your restatement?
These are bold statements. The fallacy is simple: You assume that they are accurate simply because you say so.
That does not, however, support any claimed accuracy in your statements. You merely repeat them because repetition may convince simple minds.
This is the source of the fallacy mentioned above and it is also a fallacy. It demonstrates that you do not understand the Scientific Method.
The method is used to remove the problem of one's self and ones perspective in modeling reality and testing the model against reality. That is why it is used. To sidestep our perception bias.
The metaphor was twaddlespeak so we'll focus on this...
Your fallacy repeated itself here with your assumption that the Scientific Method does not employ independently verified Observation. But it does employ it and it works. You can observe that it works because of the very computer you are using at this moment to debate the finer points of abstract reality while you reap the benefits of scientists efforts.
Demonstrate this blindness by using Spectroscopy to analyze say, Canis Major. Your whole argument is based on this supposed blindness... But we are not a dogs foot and your lack of understanding the methodology is why your whole argument falls down. It didn't have a dogs leg to stand on.
The entirety of the Method is to observe outside of ourselves and test it- constantly- for accuracy. It does not always just assume, but instead, compares constant and consistent observation against further observation. There are no Proofs in Science, but only Support for Models. Science will never lead to "Ultimate Truth" or "Total Knowledge." That is not why it was devised. It was devised to remove observation from human fallibility and it's been demonstrated, repeatedly, that IT WORKS.
Um. I'm trying to get a better, "better", idEa, of the question it seems I posted?
Jesus, it seems the assumption here is truth, right?
Could you please supply this "supporting theory" - it's certainly not presented here.
Actually it would - you've made specific claims.
Regardless of whether or not "truth" and "god" are concepts this doesn't show that god exists, nor does it support either that "the true master is god" OR that "all stand equally before him".in my opinion as both God and Truth are concepts really in this concern. Man does not even know if a thing as truth exists - he must only assume so as if he doesn't, he can make no ground towards his own imperfect, understanding of his own self. Man must always assume or assume nothing. For whatever reason, man (as well as other animals) favor to assume generally.
I'll ignore the rest since:
A) it's addressed to Seagypsy, and
B) it's largely unsupported nonsense.
Supporting evidence fails here yes?Could you please supply this "supporting theory" - it's certainly not presented here.Actually it would - you've made specific claims.Regardless of whether or not "truth" and "god" are concepts this doesn't show that god exists, nor does it support either that "the true master is god" OR that "all stand equally before him". I'll ignore the rest since:A) it's addressed to Seagypsy, andB) it's largely unsupported nonsense.in my opinion as both God and Truth are concepts really in this concern. Man does not even know if a thing as truth exists - he must only assume so as if he doesn't, he can make no ground towards his own imperfect, understanding of his own self. Man must always assume or assume nothing. For whatever reason, man (as well as other animals) favor to assume generally.
My point is, and apologies for a double post, if there is no target to aim at other than hypothesis then, then, lets find who thinks here is one and test that?
I'm ignoring a lot of the hooey after this post because I think you used a good word here; natural. Personally, I think the Scientific Method is man-made in nomenclature only. It existed before us. I think it is the best method of obtaining explanations because it is natural. In some primal and undefined ways, this methodology was carried out long before it was given a name.
I would like to add that it offers the most elegant and natural explanations (i.e. without evoking one or more unnecessary and/or supernatural entities).
I won't speak as to whether or not it is the best way to seek truth because I believe truth to be relative to the individual, but I do believe it is the best way to process data and come to a logical conclusion.
Moot point since I've already pointed out that
Tenver believes so his argument resolves to "god exists therefore I'm right".
Are you referring to the trial-and-error strategy that is used by animals?
Where have I said that God exists and where have I said that I am right?
That man has no other option that trial-and-error, not much different from any other animal, does not make it a matter of truth but just a matter of adaptation.
Metaphorical spanner in the works coming up (and only half-formed as an argument - dissect at will):
If we accept that by "truth" we mean "factual statements about the way things are" then, largely, the scientific method is the only way we have of establishing that.
Any "truths" arrived at by other methods remain to be shown as true.
And we do that by... the scientific method.
I.e. claims that something is true, and that that truth was discerned by non-scientific methods, rely on acceptance of those methods which, in themselves, cannot be shown to be factually correct.
You can take it on faith that the "method" works but to actually demonstrate that it does...
Is that not an implicit claim that god exists?
Is THAT not an implicit claim that god exists?All stand equally mean before the true master, which would be God.
And, since you have given flat statements, with zero support (despite claiming to have support - "only arguments can be made with supporting theory"), it appears that you are assuming you are correct.
"Must", "only"... don't indicate any uncertainty...
Apart from the scientific method, you mean?That man has no other option that trial-and-error
Or are you, mistakenly, confusing the two?
Depends on the truth you are seeking.
Science is a wonderful tool to prove facts in spite of variables.
However Science does not explain other things in human lives......
I don't think Science can explain why a person can hear notes to sing music and another can't and one person has the sense of rhythm but another doesn't.
If someone can explain this, I'd be interested.
In my teaching and work in music, I still don't know why my father who loved to sing, couldn't, my mother could...and my son has a great sense of rhythm but can't sing and my daughter has both, and my husband has neither!
I am just curious as to theories.
It's been explained to you what the word "prove" means and that you keep misusing the word. Additionally, that sentence of yours above does not make any sense. "prove" what "facts" in spite of what variables? It makes no sense. How does one 'prove facts' (oxymoron) and do so In Spite of Variables? I cannot make heads or tails of what you meant to say.
You are an admitted non-scientist that has repeatedly demonstrated that your lack of scientific education weighs heavily on your beliefs and your complete misunderstanding of the Scientific Method has been demonstrated in more posts than I can count.
If you feel like I'm picking on you, I am not.
I am picking on your ideas; Ideas that you continue to promote on a Science Forum. They Must Be Challenged.
The bit in bold is false. Pure and simple. Because many posters, myself included, have repeatedly tried to explain these things to you and you've rejected all explanations slight of hand while falling back on the claim that they are simply your beliefs and to "Agree to Disagree."
You have soundly demonstrated that you have zero interest in really learning about science.
These claims and assertions should not be tolerated in spite of how enjoyable many of your posts and humor are. Your assertions must continue to be challenged by the scientific minds of the forum.
What "you think" or believe without having done any study on the subject or any research whatsoever, much less follow any actual scientific methodology is of no consequence. What can be supported with consistent testing and observation is. And testing and observation (I must have posted at least ten links on this to you which you utterly ignored... Were you really interested in learning you would have read them, questioned them or followed up with more than, paraphrase: "It's my belief so let's agree to disagree. Science will never be able to explain much of the universe because it is incapable of doing so.") has shown that your beliefs are as fleeting as Religion.
I already explained to you what a Theory is and like the word, "proof or prove" you continue to misuse it. This demonstrates, again, that your interest lies not in learning but in asserting your beliefs without support.
This where the whole question gets bogged down by woo and fuzzy thinking.
People use this claim without being able to show that there are "other truths", let alone establish/ prove them.
Huh?However Science does not explain other things in human lives......
I don't think Science can explain why a person can hear notes to sing music and another can't and one person has the sense of rhythm but another doesn't.
At its simplest all human abilities vary across a spectrum.
Not having a sense of rhythm is the musical equivalent of, say, being unable to do quadratic equations in your head, or not pick up a foreign language despite lessons 1.
You might as well ask why, since, everyone can run (or at least those with the requisite number of limbs and the motor control), aren't we all Olympic champions.
Yes it's deeper for things like tone deafness, but, it's (probably) as simple as that for the generality.
We none of us see colours exactly the same way, or hear sounds the same way... is it any wonder that reproducing those sounds should also vary?
cf, for example, relative pitch and absolute pitch.
1 Or, on a personal level: I'm a design engineer - it's my job to design equipment and do the drawings. Over the years I've noticed that many people are simply unable to take a 3D object and render it as multiple views in 2D. This requirement is dying out since CAD systems came into general use of course, but that simply highlighted that about an equal number of people are incapable of visualising something in 3D in their head to create the model (drawing).
You don't normally slip up so badly. You actually maintain that abstract quantities cannot be defined?
Damn these late nights! (Actually early mornings).You don't normally slip up so badly. You actually maintain that abstract quantities cannot be defined?
I missed off the words "as an actuality".
I did remedy that in a later post where I pointed out that a concept, in and of itself, doesn't do anything (i.e. a "concept" doesn't/ can't actually know anything).
Nicely caught.
In the simplest way, sure. But I'm still talking about what I was taught are the 5 principles of the scientific method: goal, model, data, evaluation, revision. This basic methodology comes naturally. The scientific method merely sets parameters and definitions so that we all share a congruous experience. Before it coalesced in the 17th century as we know it today, it was still very much in use by scientists.
Are you referring to the trial-and-error strategy that is used by animals?
That suggest that the 5 principles of the pseudoscientific method might be: goal, vague description, data, selection, confirmation!
What's the fifth step? Disseminate misinformation?
Conclusion, generalisation, cherry-picking, denial (of anything contradictory), self-gratification.
The axiomatic method gives as much truth as the empirical method.
Example?
Really?
Just because something is self-consistent doesn't mean it's factually true.
You are aware, I take it, that an axiom is taken as true by consensus, even though it cannot be proven to be so?
PS, are you going to reply to my post pointing out your lie?
Or are you simply hoping it will fade into the background and that we'll forget your blatant dishonesty?
axiomatic as in mathematical?
All these are due to their brain and physical experience received by brain that determine what are their interests and capacities and their performance . One can understand rhythm better than other.
There is nothing surprising or contrary to science.
I can write song very well and also tune them but cannot give good performance on stage . There is reason, I have low degree of concentration than many of people around me who gives very good performance .
All these are very simple.
Where's the "dislike" button when you need it?
Ho hum...
Lack of concentration is NOT equivalent to being unable to sing in tune or carry a rhythm.
My means is not specific, but in generalWhere's the "dislike" button when you need it?
Ho hum...
Lack of concentration is NOT equivalent to being unable to sing in tune or carry a rhythm.
Lack of concentration may not equivalent to being unable to sing in tune
But I am sure it make effect on my performance
Tenver , science has limitations no doubt because of limited availability of information.
No, only arguments can be made with supporting theory. Man is limited, he is only connected to the very specific points of the Universe that he touches. I cannot prove it as that would require omniscience. Man as a part of reality can never understand reality in its whole. His assumptions are blind and lead nowhere but to his own self - this self is always disconnected from large parts of reality. Man can never verify anything finally and unquestionably because he will always be blind to certain things and thus, he can make no judgement of the whole (the Universe f.ex.) which is needed to rightly discern its parts from other parts.
No. It would not be needed either in my opinion as both God and Truth are concepts really in this concern. Man does not even know if a thing as truth exists - he must only assume so as if he doesn't, he can make no ground towards his own imperfect, understanding of his own self. Man must always assume or assume nothing. For whatever reason, man (as well as other animals) favor to assume generally.Can you show that god exists?
Who's to judge who are higher or lower towards the eternal and the definite reality - a man or God? A man can only act from his own self - not the entire cosmos which would rightly judge the part in relation to the whole. What's better? A fish that can swim or a bird that can fly? A baby that dies soon after birth or a man that lives to be a hundred years old? To speak in metaphorical language, the foot of a dog can only judge from itself - it cannot see anything else of the dog that does not border on the foot and to which it has no relation, so it has no place to speak of the dog as one and cannot put itself, the foot, in relation to the whole dog or to other parts of the dog. In less metaphorical language, man has the same problem and cannot speak of himself (or others) from any other viewpoint than himself or put his own place in the cosmos down. Thus, he will always assume despite his blindness. Only a perfect vision, abstractly, could see truth. Man's blindness does always lead him to assume without being able to verify anything from a point outside his own blindness. One can just see how limited man is in time and space. He can hardly know what is going on in another room in a building than the one he is in, much less the whole cosmos and all its foundation. No man can escape this blindness and as such, all men stand equally mean before the imagined higher consciousness, reality itself and the supposed truth and no man can from himself verify anything of the whole but only act from his part, which is necessarily blind. The truth, God in a sense, could render any man's opinion invalid in a blink if it were to come down on us. No man can even verify his own existence other than to assume from his own self. Not even his own ignorance can he verify, because there are possible alternatives that he cannot disprove because of his inherit fragmented vision. Only the whole, with perfect vision, could describe its parts, and only a conscious being (in any manner) that stands outside the whole could put the whole in relation to other things and thereby understand the whole as one unit. Regardless of whether the only opposite to reality is nothing.I disagree, some are clearly more mean than others. And how can something be clumsy and practical at the same time?
By clumsy and practical, I only mean that it enforces man's flaws and mistakes and by practical that it has no other option than to be based on immediate, basic concerns.
So science will not give answer of every question.It is not possible to find many things through science.
But with available information gives probably most reliable answer but we can give.
So scientific information is most reliable information out of available information according to our knowledge.
How do you sure on reliability of unscientific informaiton like GOD?
Answer me , Why science does not recognize it ?
Simply because no one observed any thing about GOD. Its simply like self made story .
There is not reliabilty in these type of information because these are not based on true observation.
just self made story.
There were and are so many brilliant brain in world, but no one observed or find any information about GOD.
If they can find atom to quark , cannot they find even little information about GOD?
If I say there is a God name "Rotto"
why would not you believe?
I same was said by your parents and society around you
Possibly You would believe.
Math is the most famous example of the axiomatic method. That is why so many of the ancient mathematicians were also philosophers. The axiomatic method has created truths so solid that some people believe that they are fundamental qualities of the universe.
As I could not look at a house plan and get it till I drew the furniture (including light fixtures) where they went and then I could visualize the room, even though I am very visually oriented, the plans meant nothing till I could "see" them in my own perspective?This where the whole question gets bogged down by woo and fuzzy thinking.
People use this claim without being able to show that there are "other truths", let alone establish/ prove them.
At its simplest all human abilities vary across a spectrum.However Science does not explain other things in human lives......
I don't think Science can explain why a person can hear notes to sing music and another can't and one person has the sense of rhythm but another doesn't.
Not having a sense of rhythm is the musical equivalent of, say, being unable to do quadratic equations in your head, or not pick up a foreign language despite lessons 1.
You might as well ask why, since, everyone can run (or at least those with the requisite number of limbs and the motor control), aren't we all Olympic champions.
Yes it's deeper for things like tone deafness, but, it's (probably) as simple as that for the generality.
We none of us see colours exactly the same way, or hear sounds the same way... is it any wonder that reproducing those sounds should also vary?
cf, for example, relative pitch and absolute pitch.
1 Or, on a personal level: I'm a design engineer - it's my job to design equipment and do the drawings. Over the years I've noticed that many people are simply unable to take a 3D object and render it as multiple views in 2D. This requirement is dying out since CAD systems came into general use of course, but that simply highlighted that about an equal number of people are incapable of visualising something in 3D in their head to create the model (drawing).
I am well aware of color blindness and *L* "tone deafness". I also know that to get a tone deaf person to sing a pure note, isn't going to really happen, however that individual might hit in the general vicinity if you work hard enough with them. We usually also refer to "perfect pitch", something not all people have.
We all have our special "qualities" in life, but is it genetic, scientific? Are you just born that way, is it generation removed. (I'd find that difficult as my family has been musical like forever.)
Thanks for your perspective.
Oh and my thinking isn't fuzzy. *glare*
As I could not look at a house plan and get it till I drew the furniture (including light fixtures) where they went and then I could visualize the room, even though I am very visually oriented, the plans meant nothing till I could "see" them in my own perspective?This where the whole question gets bogged down by woo and fuzzy thinking.
People use this claim without being able to show that there are "other truths", let alone establish/ prove them.
Huh?However Science does not explain other things in human lives......
I don't think Science can explain why a person can hear notes to sing music and another can't and one person has the sense of rhythm but another doesn't.
At its simplest all human abilities vary across a spectrum.
Not having a sense of rhythm is the musical equivalent of, say, being unable to do quadratic equations in your head, or not pick up a foreign language despite lessons 1.
You might as well ask why, since, everyone can run (or at least those with the requisite number of limbs and the motor control), aren't we all Olympic champions.
Yes it's deeper for things like tone deafness, but, it's (probably) as simple as that for the generality.
We none of us see colours exactly the same way, or hear sounds the same way... is it any wonder that reproducing those sounds should also vary?
cf, for example, relative pitch and absolute pitch.
1 Or, on a personal level: I'm a design engineer - it's my job to design equipment and do the drawings. Over the years I've noticed that many people are simply unable to take a 3D object and render it as multiple views in 2D. This requirement is dying out since CAD systems came into general use of course, but that simply highlighted that about an equal number of people are incapable of visualising something in 3D in their head to create the model (drawing).
I am well aware of color blindness and *L* "tone deafness". I also know that to get a tone deaf person to sing a pure note, isn't going to really happen, however that individual might hit in the general vicinity if you work hard enough with them. We usually also refer to "perfect pitch", something not all people have.
We all have our special "qualities" in life, but is it genetic, scientific? Are you just born that way, is it generation removed. (I'd find that difficult as my family has been musical like forever.)
Thanks for your perspective.
Oh and my thinking isn't fuzzy. *glare*
That makes no sense.All these are due to their brain and physical experience received by brain that determine what are their interests and capacities and their performance . One can understand rhythm better than other.
There is nothing surprising or contrary to science.
I can write song very well and also tune them but cannot give good performance on stage . There is reason, I have low degree of concentration than many of people around me who gives very good performance .
All these are very simple.
If you can write a song you can concentrate. If you can sing a song. You can concentrate. If you can't perform a song, has NOTHING to DO with concentration.
AND if you couldn't perform a song on stage OR a play than frankly you wouldn't be there.
Your reply makes no sense. Scientific or to the layman COMMON.
Actually it makes perfect sense. One's ability to concentrate on one thing does not automatically guarantee he/she can concentrate on another. I cannot concentrate on things that bring me anxiety. Writing a song may not cause anxiety and so nothing is blocking the ability to concentrate. but being on stage and afraid of rejection can cause extreme anxiety for some and anxiety produces chemicals in the brain that blocks the person's ability to concentrate.
All it takes to understand these things are beginners classes in psychology and neurology. But not everyone takes these classes or has the interest in them to study them outside of a classroom. So it may not be layman understanding or even the understanding of commoners, but to anyone who actually takes the time to learn it makes perfect sense.
The thing is, a persons vocal cords are not cut from a mold.
We are all Colonies of Cells.
Vocal cords develop when the cells are stacked up so, like fingerprints, each persons vocal cords will have variances in their shape and function, even if minor.
So, there is a bit more to it than just the brain, but the principle is still sound.
Have I said every person who cannot sing , has concentration problem?That makes no sense.All these are due to their brain and physical experience received by brain that determine what are their interests and capacities and their performance . One can understand rhythm better than other.
There is nothing surprising or contrary to science.
I can write song very well and also tune them but cannot give good performance on stage . There is reason, I have low degree of concentration than many of people around me who gives very good performance .
All these are very simple.
If you can write a song you can concentrate. If you can sing a song. You can concentrate. If you can't perform a song, has NOTHING to DO with concentration.
AND if you couldn't perform a song on stage OR a play than frankly you wouldn't be there.
Your reply makes no sense. Scientific or to the layman COMMON.
No
I just gave an example how different reasons effect our abilities.
My means is just as you said " one person can sing, other not , one has writing efficiency others do not have" are simple things and are not surprising and does not create any doubt on ability of science.
Yes very good understanding, I have problem of concentration. This problem does not make effect when I am alone.
I mean God only as the abstract concept I have defined. I do not claim to know anything to exist, neither this consciousness of the kind supposed by the concept. Truth is the facts of reality and there can only be one reality, otherwise it would not be reality. Therefore, to reduce all to truth would mean to see and perceive everything.Is that not an implicit claim that god exists?
Is THAT not an implicit claim that god exists?All stand equally mean before the true master, which would be God.
And, since you have given flat statements, with zero support (despite claiming to have support - "only arguments can be made with supporting theory"), it appears that you are assuming you are correct.
"Must", "only"... don't indicate any uncertainty...
Apart from the scientific method, you mean?That man has no other option that trial-and-error
Or are you, mistakenly, confusing the two?
It's pointless to state anything in anything else other than positives at this point, since none of my words hold any more credibility than other words as to the truth of the world, which we have supposed as one (ie. the Universe).
Man can only do trial-and-error and will always be blind. Whatever he calls it does not exempt him from his own blindness. No man can even verify his own existence by argument that cannot be refuted by other men and man as a part of the whole has no place to speak of the whole anymore than what his being governs him to. All of man's assumption could be swept away in a moment by an all-seeing and all-knowing consciousness. That man like to think of himself as some sort of a demi-God in his own mind often and that he should be separate from the fabric of existence does not place him above his foundation, it merely is a function of himself. Man can only find what agrees with himself and as a part of the whole there are things which will never agree with him, because he cannot escape his own blindness in form and matter.
What is the difference between a dog that searches for food and man that uses what he calls 'the scientific method'? None, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is the only option the two creatures have, namely trial-and-error.
Therefore, the only way to truth would be to be a God (as per my definition f.ex.). No less. Truth springs from reality and truth cannot be examined by anything less than what has insight into reality. The chair, the dog and man stand equally helpless there. That they employ various forms of trial-and-error (in the last two at least, as conscious beings) is merely a matter of adaptation and will never lead to anything other than what agrees with themselves (dog and man).
Except that you have made claims about the capabilities of "god".
What nonsense.Therefore, to reduce all to truth would mean to see and perceive everything.
You seem to be equating truth with "all of truth".
This is false.since none of my words hold any more credibility than other words as to the truth of the world
Science gives us credible words about the "truths of the world", you (at least thus far) haven't.
Wrong again.Man can only do trial-and-error
Science is not trial and error and it's deceptive of you to persist in so claiming.
"Always"? And you know this how?and will always be blind
Plus, of course, it's a rather sweeping (and unsupported) claim in the first place.
Wrong.No man can even verify his own existence by argument that cannot be refuted by other men
But Winnie The Pooh would fix it and make it better.All of man's assumption could be swept away in a moment by an all-seeing and all-knowing consciousness
Rubbish.Man can only find what agrees with himself and as a part of the whole there are things which will never agree with him
Another claim that's rather sweeping.because he cannot escape his own blindness in form and matter.
Please show how we're "blind".
Then you clearly don't have a clue as to what science is.Thus your opinion is less than valid.What is the difference between a dog that searches for food and man that uses what he calls 'the scientific method'? None, in my opinion.
Wrong.Nonetheless, it is the only option the two creatures have, namely trial-and-error.
Blatantly and stupidly wrong.
Facile unsupported asumption.Therefore, the only way to truth would be to be a God
So you're saying, essentially, that we don't know anything at all about reality?Truth springs from reality and truth cannot be examined by anything less than what has insight into reality.
Can you support this?
Ridiculous assumption.The chair, the dog and man stand equally helpless there
Well. I guess we disagree haha.
I do tend to disagree with people who make ridiculous unfounded claims, especially if those claims are based on ignorance.
It's a failing of mine.
Do you notice you have not provided much argument but only verbal abuse/ad hominem attacks?I do tend to disagree with people who make ridiculous unfounded claims, especially if those claims are based on ignorance.
It's a failing of mine.
Perhaps YOU haven't noticed that my "lack of argument" was matched to yours (for the main part) - all you've done is make unsupported claims.Do you notice you have not provided much argument but only verbal abuse/ad hominem attacks?I do tend to disagree with people who make ridiculous unfounded claims, especially if those claims are based on ignorance.
It's a failing of mine.
What I've done is ask questions and point out where your suppositions actually are such - you haven't provided any back up whatsoever.
Perhaps you've also noticed that there isn't a single ad hominem argument in my replies.
As for "verbal abuse", do you not think that someone who persists in equating science with trial and error is displaying ignorance?
(Sorry, obviously you don't, since you're one one that's doing that).
Oh yeah - you've then gone on to add to your ignorance by not knowing what an ad hominem really is.
~ Oh dear me 'Tenver' You have done more than just be wrong.
To say as if you believe it that man can never know.. Is just wrong on every level.
I do not have the patients of the 'Genius Duck' who has shown some restraint that I find impressive..
The scientific method is by it's own the only way a resolution of knowledge attained can be tested,
questioned and found wanting, or correct.
I saw a insult to humanities great strides forward where you suggest we can not know truths..
For goodness sake this is a science forum.. You might find the people here do know a thing or two...
You just said " I guess we disagree." They are not the words I would use.
How can I respond in argument? I cannot, except to claim that the delusion is perfect - for both of us.
Poor mortals we are indeed. No man can overstep himself.
It is pointless to discuss further argument since all attention have been focused on the failings of the other persons argument.
I will only say that where ignorance of man is present, so is the delusion of his beliefs, for both of us.
You cannot claim to know without assuming and you cannot escape your own limitations whoever one is.
And another unsupported claim.
Please indicate where my "delusion is perfect".
And a nonsense phrase.Poor mortals we are indeed. No man can overstep himself.
How does "overstepping" enter into the argument?
Then please, show where my ignorance lies.will only say that where ignorance of man is present, so is the delusion of his beliefs, for both of us.
(Without, I hardly need to say, resorting to unsupported claims).
What?You cannot claim to know without assuming
WTF does this have to do with the discussion?and you cannot escape your own limitations whoever one is.
You are doing a very good job of making your words have a lot less credibility than anyone else's.
Nonsense. You are ignoring science, math and logic.Man can only do trial-and-error
As you don't appear to have a clue how science works (or even how dogs search for food) I'm not sure why you are posting on a science forum. I'm sure there are Internet forums where people can sit around talking about hopelessly about how ignorant they are. Maybe you could find one (perhaps using your preferred, but highly ineffective, method of trial and error).What is the difference between a dog that searches for food and man that uses what he calls 'the scientific method'? None, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is the only option the two creatures have, namely trial-and-error.
You have encountered some hostility here. Let's set that aside.
You speak of the ignorance of man. Good science wholly acknowledges that ignorance and seeks, in a methodical, demonstrably successful manner, to gradual eliminate some of that ignorance. Are you arguing that your approach - which appears to involve ill defined ruminating - is more effective at removing ignorance than the scientific method?
You speak of trial and error. Trial and error are tools of science but they are not the only ones. What makes you think that they are? That is not a rhetorical question. I should like to explore how you arrived at that belief.
If science were simply trial and error, chemists, with their essentially limitless permutations, would spend their entire lives making useless substances or blowing themselves up.
Am I correct in the assertion that 'Tenver' does not seem to understand what it is to be scientific.
I make it clear that I use the scientific method constantly. Testing, doubting, questioning, challenging and constantly looking for other than the assumptions held.
That science is the ONLY testable and challenged method of moving forward.
A hypothesis formed, a theory established tested, and tested again.. The true scientist avoids those words like proven.
Very little ever is.. but given the scrutiny of test can a confirmation of theory stand.. as tested.. and until new and relevant information changes it stands.. Belief of faith based assumptions does not stand the same test and disprove formula.
The problem is that man is in the same shoes as the dog that searches the familiar room for food - he has only previous sensation and perception to base it on and is entirely powerless to see outside his own limits. Any system of the world that man builds in his mind must include himself - and by this, unless he names himself the eternal God - his limits are defined and his blindness is equally testified. Any system that puts man on Earth as a being of molecules irreversible introduces great limits to his understanding of things - his sensations are only limited to those in the immediate surroundings and his perception is unable to answer the origins of existence because the system will put his being as a part of a whole - and the part can never know its place in the whole, because the part can only see from its very narrow viewpoint - that of a man on Earth or a human being with limited incarnations of the whole in itself. The system can never verify itself because it is build from only fragments of the whole, not the whole (ie. the Universe) in itself.You have encountered some hostility here. Let's set that aside.
You speak of the ignorance of man. Good science wholly acknowledges that ignorance and seeks, in a methodical, demonstrably successful manner, to gradual eliminate some of that ignorance. Are you arguing that your approach - which appears to involve ill defined ruminating - is more effective at removing ignorance than the scientific method?
You speak of trial and error. Trial and error are tools of science but they are not the only ones. What makes you think that they are? That is not a rhetorical question. I should like to explore how you arrived at that belief.
Thus, only a real form of God, with all perception and all experience in one can display itself as truth. It would necessary contain all reality and display itself by itself (or imaginably, as a being of supreme consciousness outside reality) and in this sense, be the whole and have no contradiction in itself because all existence were available to it. Thus, similarly, man contains only part of reality and can never truly verify all existence because his sensations and perceptions are limited by the very same conditions that define them. His conception of reality is always impacted and created by his own being because those are the only channels through which he can observe himself and his environment. He must only create a mental representation of the world, one in which all is skewered and distorted by his being and his certain modes of operation, experimentally and intellectually, and thus his conception will always contain certain assumptions that are personal to him but that offer no representation of the whole, but only the representation of the part. Man's conception of the world will never be more than his private distortion of the world, as it finally reaches his consciousness, and this he cannot escape because he is bound up and defined by the limitation of himself in his system. Either man must assume nothing and have no conception of the world or man must assume his understanding of the world, purely because it agrees with him.
Therefore man in his conception of the world cannot avoid limiting himself and thereby remove the ability to verify himself and the system that he is in, unless of course, that he claims himself to be a God.
Therefore, man's individual consciousness has no other option than trial-and-error, he cannot receive the truth in its purest form but only experience it through his particular being. Any moment that man starts to define his perceptions is the moment that man assumes that his way of being is the complete way in matter and form.
My use of the word God is entirely and only connected the act of creation; the creation of all and everything. In this way, it is synonymous with the real. It is an abstract definition of the creation that we seem to be part of.
So you're assuming here that a man doesn't have access to previous efforts, that there's no recourse to checking how others have done it, or tried it, beforehand. You also seem to be assuming that a man can't plan ahead, can't speculate about possible ways of attacking the problem, can't envisage alternatives.
You're also assuming that man isn't aware of limits (and that he can, in some cases, construct tools to overcome them). And you STILL haven't specified exactly what this "blindness" is.his limits are defined and his blindness is equally testified
According to you. Can you show that these "limits" have something outside of them, or is this just a speculation of yours?Any system that puts man on Earth as a being of molecules irreversible introduces great limits to his understanding of things
You keep stating this as if it's an incontroverible fact as opposed to a simple claim.and the part can never know its place in the whole
Er, doesn't this contradict your other statement:Thus, only a real form of God, with all perception and all experience in one can display itself as truth.
Please show that this "all and everything" is actually perceptive and experiences.My use of the word God is entirely and only connected the act of creation; the creation of all and everything. In this way, it is synonymous with the real. It is an abstract definition of the creation that we seem to be part of.
Repeated claim.Thus, similarly, man contains only part of reality and can never truly verify all existence because his sensations and perceptions are limited by the very same conditions that define them.
This is incorrect.Therefore, man's individual consciousness has no other option than trial-and-error
The scientific method is NOT trial and error.
Please show that (whatever you call) "truth in its purest form" is anything different than what we can verify.he cannot receive the truth in its purest form
Your entire argument appears to be predicated on this nebulous (and so far unspecified) "truth in its purest form", a fallacious conflation of the phrases "scientific method" and "trial and error" and a neglect of man's intellectual capacity (i.e. a man is far more capable than a dog at solving problems).
Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 9th, 2013 at 03:41 AM.
You appear to be making an unjustified and illogical leap from "our perception of the world is limited" to "therefore we know nothing", which is clearly a ridiculous conclusion.
There is a significant problem with this statement. It is either wrong, or it is is misleading. The problem hinges upon whether you mean mankind, or a man.
If you mean mankind then you are contrasting all of mankind with the behaviour of a single dog. (That all dogs may behave in the same way is irrelevant.) Such a contrast, treating things qualitatively different as if they were the same, is illogical and - if chosen consciously - deceitful. If it is chosen unconsciously it is deluded.
If you mean a man then the statement is simply wrong, since - for example - man can easily see outside his limits by benefitting from the perceptions of other men.
Really? I trained as a geologist. Man had no place in the world system I learned about and investigated.
It always amused me that creationists related evolution to the evolution of mankind. Until quite recently I had zero interest in the evolution of mankind. I (and all of my fellow students) were concerned with the development of thecae in graptolites, the progressive complication of ammonite sutures, ecological issues such as the general replacement of brachiopods by lamellibranchs. We dabbled in vertebrate palaeontology only to the extent we had to to pass the course.
So, I find your suggestion that man must have a place in this system to be very silly. I do concede, however, that it is a good illustration of how an individual man - yourself - can find it difficult to see beyond his own limits.
This and the associated argument is rendered invalid since I do not require mankind to be part of the system that is described. Mankind's existence or non-existence has no influence on nuclear fusion in stars, weather on Venus, nucleosynthesis in supernovae, the evolution of marsupials, the expansion of the universe, or formation of chondrules in an accretion disc.his sensations are only limited to those in the immediate surroundings and his perception is unable to answer the origins of existence because the system will put his being as a part of a whole
Your definition of trial and error appears to be flawed. Your presentation above does nothing to address my question. This wikipedia definition is an accurate one:
Trial and error is a fundamental method of solving problems. It is characterised by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success, or until the agent stops trying. It is an unsystematic method which does not employ insight, theory or organised methodology.
Science uses insight, theory and organised methodology and is, therefore, not a trial an error system. So, I ask again - why do you think it is?
Who is making his theory of the world? Man or God? A conception of the world can only be individual, no representation of the world can be filled over multiple individuals. A man may choose to conform - but he is only creating own conception of the world after someone else's thought then - and he is not doing the acts of a demi-God that enjoys equal insight as God himself. Consciousness in man almost makes him feel as separate to his body, almost as outside his body and among Gods - but he is nonetheless only on Earth, and every man has only his individual consciousness to consult.There is a significant problem with this statement. It is either wrong, or it is is misleading. The problem hinges upon whether you mean mankind, or a man.
If you mean mankind then you are contrasting all of mankind with the behaviour of a single dog. (That all dogs may behave in the same way is irrelevant.) Such a contrast, treating things qualitatively different as if they were the same, is illogical and - if chosen consciously - deceitful. If it is chosen unconsciously it is deluded.
If you mean a man then the statement is simply wrong, since - for example - man can easily see outside his limits by benefitting from the perceptions of other men.
Really? I trained as a geologist. Man had no place in the world system I learned about and investigated.
It always amused me that creationists related evolution to the evolution of mankind. Until quite recently I had zero interest in the evolution of mankind. I (and all of my fellow students) were concerned with the development of thecae in graptolites, the progressive complication of ammonite sutures, ecological issues such as the general replacement of brachiopods by lamellibranchs. We dabbled in vertebrate palaeontology only to the extent we had to to pass the course.
So, I find your suggestion that man must have a place in this system to be very silly. I do concede, however, that it is a good illustration of how an individual man - yourself - can find it difficult to see beyond his own limits.
This and the associated argument is rendered invalid since I do not require mankind to be part of the system that is described. Mankind's existence or non-existence has no influence on nuclear fusion in stars, weather on Venus, nucleosynthesis in supernovae, the evolution of marsupials, the expansion of the universe, or formation of chondrules in an accretion disc.his sensations are only limited to those in the immediate surroundings and his perception is unable to answer the origins of existence because the system will put his being as a part of a whole
Your definition of trial and error appears to be flawed. Your presentation above does nothing to address my question. This wikipedia definition is an accurate one:
Trial and error is a fundamental method of solving problems. It is characterised by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success, or until the agent stops trying. It is an unsystematic method which does not employ insight, theory or organised methodology.
Science uses insight, theory and organised methodology and is, therefore, not a trial an error system. So, I ask again - why do you think it is?
There can be no shared consciousness in the sense of a consciousness created and maintained by multiple individuals; only in the sense of an emulated consciousness created in one's own being.
That masses of men may agree on something does not make it true - it only means that their perception is the same in some ways. Just as well, every baby is born without the knowledge of its generation and this it must learn for itself - no consciousness can be directly transferred, because it belongs to the individual alone.
Trial-and-error only means that one tries and corrects the error - what else can science do? What else can the whole of man do in all his endeavors except to skip the last part perhaps?
Man can only base his assumption on observed experience else it would not make sense to call it experience, but merely superstition of supposed events which does not add to the base of experiences. If the dog searches a room for the food bowl and it has been there the last 5 times but the 6th time it is not there, what can the dog do? How is this different from man's endeavor to create a conception of the world?
Man may conform totally to another persons or several people's beliefs, but he still acts as a single consciousness and awareness, and he cannot duplicate the consciousness of another on himself or his own on another, and his own being with its particular parts will still be one creating the being's worldview.
There can be no knowledge in the culture of man without men and each man must forge his own by his own consciousness and awareness - this he cannot extract from another, even if he ventures to totally conform.
Nonsense. (And please stop bringing "god" into the discussion as you apparently have your own personal definition of the word that does not match anyone else's.)
Of course men can cooperate, communicate, share ideas and build more complex models between them. (You may have heard Newton's phrase about "standing on the shoulders of giants".) How do you account for the fact that almost all scientific and engineering advances are made by teams of people?
The very fact that you can express this idea using language, which is a construct built on the principles of cooperation and shared concepts just shows how wrong it is. (Or do you think that language was created by God.)
If that is how you feel, you may want to consider professional help.Consciousness in man almost makes him feel as separate to his body, almost as outside his body and among Gods
If there weren't some degree of shared consciousness, we would not be having this conversation.There can be no shared consciousness in the sense of a consciousness created and maintained by multiple individuals
No one said it did. You are the only one claiming there is some sort of "truth" to be discovered.That masses of men may agree on something does not make it true
You mean, like a "shared consciousness". But it means far more than their perception being the same, it means that between them they have developed and understanding and model of the world around them. Something that you appear to claim is impossible.it only means that their perception is the same in some ways.
Much, much more. You are, again, ignoring math, logic, organization of information, sharing of information, imagination, shared imagination, scientific testing through experiment and observation (which in not "trial and error" because it is done in a planned and directed way).Trial-and-error only means that one tries and corrects the error - what else can science do?
Well definitely not god.
This is arrant nonsense - as shown by human history.A conception of the world can only be individual, no representation of the world can be filled over multiple individuals.
A shared "vision" is responsible for nations, governmental systems, intellectual disciplines, art movements...
Given that you repeatedly, though somewhat disingenuously, denied that your belife in god comes into this discussion isn't it rather silly of you to to persist in using the term?A man may choose to conform - but he is only creating own conception of the world after someone else's thought then - and he is not doing the acts of a demi-God that enjoys equal insight as God himself.
So what?There can be no shared consciousness in the sense of a consciousness created and maintained by multiple individuals; only in the sense of an emulated consciousness created in one's own being.
And, you should note, claiming that something is not necessarily true does not make it untrue.That masses of men may agree on something does not make it true - it only means that their perception is the same in some ways.
Simply because we cannot definitively state that X is true doesn't automatically mean that you can calim with any validity that it's not true.
Again, so what? "Transferring consciousness" is not required.Just as well, every baby is born without the knowledge of its generation and this it must learn for itself - no consciousness can be directly transferred, because it belongs to the individual alone.
No. It does NOT. As has been shown. (You DID check the link, didn't you?)Trial-and-error only means that one tries and corrects the error
What reason do you have for calling it "superstition"? Other than your own blind prejudice that is?Man can only base his assumption on observed experience else it would not make sense to call it experience, but merely superstition of supposed events which does not add to the base of experiences.
This has already been explained to you.If the dog searches a room for the food bowl and it has been there the last 5 times but the 6th time it is not there, what can the dog do? How is this different from man's endeavor to create a conception of the world?
Straw man.Man may conform totally to another persons or several people's beliefs, but he still acts as a single consciousness and awareness, and he cannot duplicate the consciousness of another on himself or his own on another, and his own being with its particular parts will still be one creating the being's worldview.
Straw man.There can be no knowledge in the culture of man without men and each man must forge his own by his own consciousness and awareness - this he cannot extract from another, even if he ventures to totally conform.
PS: was there actually an answer to John's question anywhere at all in that essentially meaningless ramble?
Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 9th, 2013 at 09:05 AM.
Man can only create his consciousness and his understanding of his environment through his own being - through his own thoughts, his own feelings, his own eyes, his own hands, his own intuition, own logic and own previous experience - everything that comes into him in the form of belief must pass through these components and through them, they are distorted and accentuated by his being. No man can escape this - it defines our very limits as they are generally decently explored in science today - and man, even though he feels himself free and individual in his consciousness, does not stand outside his body with his consciousness as perhaps a greater being floating about outside the necessities of nature. Thus, any conception that man creates is individual and dependent on his own sensations and perception. Though he may feel himself among Gods, he is very much an animal enslaved by nature and he cannot escape this fate - even if his consciousness has developed to an advanced level in the species.Nonsense. (And please stop bringing "god" into the discussion as you apparently have your own personal definition of the word that does not match anyone else's.)
Of course men can cooperate, communicate, share ideas and build more complex models between them. (You may have heard Newton's phrase about "standing on the shoulders of giants".) How do you account for the fact that almost all scientific and engineering advances are made by teams of people?
The very fact that you can express this idea using language, which is a construct built on the principles of cooperation and shared concepts just shows how wrong it is. (Or do you think that language was created by God.)
If that is how you feel, you may want to consider professional help.Consciousness in man almost makes him feel as separate to his body, almost as outside his body and among Gods
If there weren't some degree of shared consciousness, we would not be having this conversation.There can be no shared consciousness in the sense of a consciousness created and maintained by multiple individuals
No one said it did. You are the only one claiming there is some sort of "truth" to be discovered.That masses of men may agree on something does not make it true
You mean, like a "shared consciousness". But it means far more than their perception being the same, it means that between them they have developed and understanding and model of the world around them. Something that you appear to claim is impossible.it only means that their perception is the same in some ways.
Much, much more. You are, again, ignoring math, logic, organization of information, sharing of information, imagination, shared imagination, scientific testing through experiment andTrial-and-error only means that one tries and corrects the error - what else can science do?
observation (which in not "trial and error" because it is done in a planned and directed way).
If there is no truth to be discovered, why bother entertaining personal conceptions of reality? If all is null and has no permanence - why bother trying to understand anything if nothing can be identified singularly and in relations? Surely, there must be a truth, else everything is void and has no reality.
Do you have any evidence to support any of these broad claims you're making?
Granted, I barely understand what you're even talking about, but you seem to be doing so with a confidence I can't justify based on your supporting arguments.
This is quite obviously wrong, as has been explained multiple times. With evidence. Simply repeating an incorrect statement does not magically make it correct. It just makes you look closed minded and rather foolish.
Now, if you were to provide any supporting evidence ...
I don't share you nihilistic world-view.If there is no truth to be discovered, why bother entertaining personal conceptions of reality? If all is null and has no permanence - why bother trying to understand anything if nothing can be identified singularly and in relations? Surely, there must be a truth, else everything is void and has no reality.
If you think there is a "truth" to be discovered, how do you suggest we go about it? So far all you have done is make comments about the impossibility of knowing anything. Which is obviously nonsense, given the huge amount we (humanity) have learned and are still learning.
How about pulling yourself out of this negative mind-set and saying something constructive.
Wrong.
As simple as that.
What does consciousness have to do with it?and man, even though he feels himself free and individual in his consciousness, does not stand outside his body with his consciousness as perhaps a greater being floating about outside the necessities of nature.
Wrong again.Thus, any conception that man creates is individual and dependent on his own sensations and perception.
And once again reference to "god". But now you've added "fate". With more "consciousness" thrown in.Though he may feel himself among Gods, he is very much an animal enslaved by nature and he cannot escape this fate - even if his consciousness has developed to an advanced level in the species.
Is this a straw man?If there is no truth to be discovered, why bother entertaining personal conceptions of reality? If all is null and has no permanence - why bother trying to understand anything if nothing can be identified singularly and in relations? Surely, there must be a truth, else everything is void and has no reality.
Who said there's no truth?
Who said "all is null and there's no permanence"?
Who said that "nothing can be identified singularly and in relations"?
Are you being deliberately dishonest here or is there a major breakdown in comprehension?
WHEW!!! I am not alone!!! "Pulling up a chair"......let's just listen.
Science can help in understanding Nature. Science can give the best possible explanation. GOD created humans and gave them power to know everything. However there are some conventions here. No, Science will not be able to explain everything.
True.
It sure can.
Weird comment after suggesting science gives us the best answers and science requires you to abandon absurd notions for which there is no evidence. God, for example.
Your evidence? God gave us the power to know everything, but we can't know everything? Do YOU even know what you're talking about?
I don't feel unique in saying that I don't appear to have received that power.
But then, if you knew everything, I wouldn't need to tell you that.
And yet you dismiss science in virtually every single one of your posts.
Damn!!!
I know everything....
Holy COW!
I am amazing!!
I think I will create a 9 carat diamond....
*SHAZAM"
Now I can make many and sell them...and have cures for cancer and glaucoma and diabetes and kidney disease........I AM NO OMNIPOTANT!
HAND ME A CIGAR!! ......cause now I can even smoke!
Tenver, your responses so far suggest one of two possibilities.
1. You have reading comprehension difficulties. If this is so I am happy to work hard at making my writing clearer.
2. You are so wrapped up in a self-deluded, agenda-driven world that you ignore the heart of any remark that runs counter to your beliefs. If this is the explanation I may be talking to you next wearing my moderator hat.
Now pay attention. I gave you a definition of trial and error and explained to you that your definition appeared to be incorrect.
I asked you, given this correct definition, why you still thought science was a trial and error system.Your definition of trial and error appears to be flawed. Your presentation above does nothing to address my question. This wikipedia definition is an accurate one:
Trial and error is a fundamental method of solving problems. It is characterised by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success, or until the agent stops trying. It is an unsystematic method which does not employ insight, theory or organised methodology.
Science uses insight, theory and organised methodology and is, therefore, not a trial an error system. So, I ask again - why do you think it is?
This was your response. You merely repeated your earlier misunderstanding.
So, I am asking you again, but now there are two questions.Trial-and-error only means that one tries and corrects the error - what else can science do?
1. Do you understand that your definition is not the definition used by the world at large and as such has no value in communication?
2. What argument do you have, other than ignorance, to continue to insist that science is a trial and error system?
And I must ask you that answer these questions directly, avoiding the 'preaching' that seems to lie at the heart of most of your posts.
Thank you in advance.
Well, I find it amusing that you are trying to scare me away - but anyways, I will answer you.
Man himself, in the chaos of life that he exist, has only trial and error. There is no other option - sure, he may take a belief, but what is he going to do with when that belief collides with reality as he finds it?
I will, after considering it after having read that definition, agree that there is a body of science to which one can subscribe to if one wishes - but nonetheless, all additions to science is still made by trial and error - there is no other option for man in whatever endeavor he embarks on, also if it is to add to the generally reputed scientific body of knowledge.
I will maintain that man has no other option in life than trial and error, whether it is seek knowledge from science or to add to the scientific body of knowledge - though I will agree as well that there is a scientific body of knowledge from which one can leech information - but still, as the OP posed the question, "Is the scientific method the only way to truth", man has no other option than trial and error and the only way to truth would be to be a God. That man tries in the form of non-systematized, spontaneous experiments or in the way of systematic, ordered research does not make man any closer to truth, which is the exact question that OP posed and that I have tried to answer.
That man may find himself arrogant enough to belief he has truth or his species has truth, in one form or the other, is not surprising or uncommon.
You can ban me all you want, it does not really matter and I don't think it will be using this forum much further on anyways - that you try to avoid argument though and silence worldviews that does not correlate with your own in that respect (though I think ours do in that respect - but we are seeing it from different viewpoints, the individual vs. the collective and the OP question went from the viewpoint of the individual since only the individual could be said to having any possibility of knowledge) is a sad fact.
If there is any confusion on whether I subscribe to religion, then the answer is no, I am probably an agnostic because I find both answers of conclusion to the question of the existence of God ridiculous.
I have simply answered the OP's question, and that is that man has no other option than trial and error and the only way to truth would be to be a God. The OP's question was not is science a matter of trial and error collectively and individually, to which I would respond in the negating for the first part and the affirming for the second part. If man is alone on an island, as every individual is in the world, he can make all the science he wishes to but he would be no further than the methods of trial and error. That science builds on methods that try to perfect the experiments in the collective does not have anything to do with any individual's position in life. Man may have much order and system in science in the collective, but it does not change that every addition to science was made from trial and error, and as such it does not change that every individual born into the world must for himself decide which base of knowledge he should like to subscribe to if any.
That you may swing your club of authority here is rather insignificant to me, but I would like to hear if you understand what I mean when I speak of any individual's position in life as he is born and his own process of trial and error to subscribe to any body of knowledge, whatever it be, and the fact that every addition that has been made to science has been in the form of trial and error (trials and correction of error), no matter the fact that the collective body of science tries to perfect the experiments.
Again, what other option does any individual man has toward adding to science or any other endeavor? Should he receive the direct truth in its pure form from somewhere?
To answer you questions directly,
1. Do you understand that your definition is not the definition used by the world at large and as such has no value in communication?
You have not heard my definition until in this post and I do not really care what you think is valuable in communication.
2. What argument do you have, other than ignorance, to continue to insist that science is a trial and error system?
I have only said that each man has no other option than trial and error and that each man's contribution to science can only rely on trial and error, even if it is an advanced and rather orderly one, and I have not spoken of science as a body of research, other than it is a poor instrument, where I do think it is orderly and systematic, even it if its basic contributions have always relied on trial and error, because the individual man can do no else.
I was only answering the OP's question, which I have done, I believe.
That man may speak of system and order does not relieve him of his inherent impossibility to verify anything.
A man could believe everything there was in science, but he would not be closer to truth - only have adopted a system of knowledge of which its veracity would remain ever unknown and when faced with contradiction, he may choose to correct the error of understanding and find one that is unties the inconsistency as has always been done in science as well by individuals. You cannot have order and system without having found those - and as such, the collective body of science as a field is one of order and system.
That man may believe that the current knowledge of science is one of truth is up to himself - but he cannot remove himself from his humble place on Earth. As such, no man is born with any truth in his own conception of the world that he can verify irrefutable and as such, he has only the option of testing several understandings and correcting the contradictions that he finds.
...despite being shown that you are wrong.
You maintain your beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, which puts an end to any rational discussion.
Delusion:
Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.
Tenver, I asked you not to preach. You then proceeded to do so. You buried your replies to my simple questions 2/3 through your sermon. That is rude. That is unscientific. That is against the spirit of this forum.
Let's look at your answers.
You gave your definition in earlier posts. It was wrong.You have not heard my definition until in this post and I do not really care what you think is valuable in communication.
It is not what I think is valuable in communication it is what anyone with a frigging working brain cell thinks is valuable in communication i.e. a common language. You are arrogantly choosing to use your own definition. That is simply dumb. It is counterproductive. It removes any likelihood that anyone will pay heed to your argument. And did I mention it was dumb.
Your answer to my second question:
In other words you continue to state what other have shown to be untrue, that man can work only as an individual.I have only said that each man has no other option than trial and error and that each man's contribution to science can only rely on trial and error, even if it is an advanced and rather orderly one, and I have not spoken of science as a body of research, other than it is a poor instrument, where I do think it is orderly and systematic, even it if its basic contributions have always relied on trial and error, because the individual man can do no else.
If I were viewing this exchange as a non-participant I would put on my moderator hat and suspend you for two days, asking that you reflect on the need for agreed upon terminology. I am a participant, or rather was. You have nothing of interest to say and much that is assinine. I'm done here. I leave it to others to continue to refute your illogical thinking, self delusion and unfounded arrogance.
Edit: I just noticed your opening remark.
I have no interest in scaring you away. I have a great deal of interest in waking you up to the illogic of your beliefs and the fallacies in your argument. I feel passionately about blatant displays of self delusion. I want you to stay here and learn. I am not optimistic as to the outcome, however.Well, I find it amusing that you are trying to scare me away - but anyways, I will answer you.
I just thought that was worth repeating as it is the perfect summary.illogical thinking, self delusion and unfounded arrogance.
There appears to be nothing else to say. Tenver seems quite happy with his ignorant and obviously incorrect beliefs. Let him stew in it. While he benefits from all the scientific, technological and cultural benefits produced by methods other than trial and error, and individual effort.
You guys seem to believe that if someone takes in all the scientific information in the world then he has the truth, and I simply disagree with that stance.
Every invention is always the work of a single consciousness. Can two people invent a word or write a piece of music in its most reducible parts? No, they must be forged in a single mind for other minds to copy.
"...a fixed false belief that isresistantimmune to reason or confrontation with actual fact. "
And why is this false? Exactly, please. I have still not heard an exact reason why this is wrong."...a fixed false belief that isresistantimmune to reason or confrontation with actual fact. "
anywhere beyond: "I AM" is pure guesswork.
Please do not defile god with comparisons to mundane earthly things nor your intellectual nor emotional responses.
No one has claimed that science reveals the truth. Several of us have asserted, implicitly or explicitly, that science is an effective means of discovering things about the world. Science avoids declaring it has found the truth. Science seeks to find the most likely explanation based upon solid observation, self-consistent theory and multiply replicated prediction.
My main objection to your posts has been your intransigent insistence upon misusing a phrase that is very well defined and broadly accepted. Declaring, as you have done, that your definition is the right one is exceptionally arrogant. It is also very foolish. Let me blunt. It makes you look like a prat.
Almost no invention is the work of a single consciousness. Disputes over priority of scientific discovery, or invention, are precisely because many people - working from the same information base - arrive at similar conclusions in combination and as a consequence of that work. Please tell me which of these gentlemen is responsible for plate tectonic theory: Wilson, Holmes, Dietz, Meinez, Le Pinchon, McKenzie, Taylor, Hess, Wegner, Bullard, Vine, McKenzie, Morgan, Wadati, or someone else?
Humans use language to build understanding together. You are welcome to join the rest of us anytime you choose.
Oh, it started so well - this is a beautiful description.
It's funny that you should go on to mention individuals and not groups. Why is it not the people of some town, some academic institution or similar or country that has invented these things?
I now suspect you of being deliberately obtuse.(That is another form of rudeness.)
I really don't think you are so thick as to fail to understand that Wilson, Holmes, Dietz, Meinez, Le Pinchon, McKenzie, Taylor, Hess, Wegner, Bullard, Vine, McKenzie, Morgan, Wadati, and others are a group. They were a group of scientists working in concert to develop a better understanding of how the world appears to operate. Not individuals, but groups, teams, in combination, standing on the shoulders of each other. If you think it was one individual then answer the question you avoided. Which one invented/discovered plate tectonic?
Reasons have been said.
It is not our fault that you refuse to hear.
alternately phrased:
It has been said that science lives/thrives by the null hypothesis.
(that being a reasonably accurate descriptor?)
If then, you would seek truth
seek it's opposite
and when you can find no more opposites
then you will be rather close to your goal
I have never said science consists of contributions by one individual. Only that it consists of contributions by individuals. If it is not individuals, why do you mention their names? Shouldn't they be mentioned by the group they belong to then if it's groups and not individuals that contribute in the most reducible sense? As for plate tectonics, I don't know a damn thing about it and I don't find it very central to the question either. If it's not individuals, why are they not mentioned as Texans, Cambridge or Harvard academics, Bostonians, Germans?I now suspect you of being deliberately obtuse.(That is another form of rudeness.)
I really don't think you are so thick as to fail to understand that Wilson, Holmes, Dietz, Meinez, Le Pinchon, McKenzie, Taylor, Hess, Wegner, Bullard, Vine, McKenzie, Morgan, Wadati, and others are a group. They were a group of scientists working in concert to develop a better understanding of how the world appears to operate. Not individuals, but groups, teams, in combination, standing on the shoulders of each other. If you think it was one individual then answer the question you avoided. Which one invented/discovered plate tectonic?
What reasons? Don't give me the conclusions, give the reasons, ie. the arguments preferably with any evidence of any kind. (even if it's anecdotal).Reasons have been said.
It is not our fault that you refuse to hear.
If you say this is how it is, then say why it is that way. It would be preferable to me.
| « Everybody is the same person. | Loophole or vortex? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
