Nocturne

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And, from a philosophical standpoint, science can prove nothing. Only mathematics and logic, and their derivatives, can be "proven," if you're talking about the scientific jargon rather than the legal jargon definition of the word "proven."

Philosophically you can kiss my ass.

[Hasbinbad]

And the only reason they can be proven is that they exist fully within the conceptual framework, on "our side" of the sensation/perception wall.

[Hasbinbad]

Someone please explain this concept to the derps, I have tried over and over again and they keep being like BUT U CAN PROOOOOVE THINGS DERP

[Hasbinbad]

And this, pretty much, is why you must take science, along with all physical experience on faith.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And this, pretty much, is why you must take science, along with all physical experience on no... not on fucking faith.

If someone tells you something is such a way in science you do not take it on faith that it is correct. You challenge it and test it so that your knowledge and experience are what you take it on, not fucking faith.

That is the entire premise of science. You've even mentioned it before with scientists disproving each other. If they all took Science on faith, it would be where religion is today.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone tells you something is such a way in science you do not take it on faith that it is correct. You challenge it and test it so that your knowledge and experience are what you take it on, not fucking faith.

That is the entire premise of science. You've even mentioned it before with scientists disproving each other. If they all took Science on faith, it would be where religion is today.

So what happens when new information becomes available that disproves your best information and testing?

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone tells you something is such a way in science you do not take it on faith that it is correct. You challenge it and test it so that your knowledge and experience are what you take it on, not fucking faith.

That is the entire premise of science. You've even mentioned it before with scientists disproving each other. If they all took Science on faith, it would be where religion is today.

This is the opposite of what most people in this thread propose. You do not personally test every hypothesis you come across. You rely on experts to decide that knowledge for you.

People should read some of Bertrand Russell's work on the Scientific Outlook. He goes into some interesting points drawn from speculating the effects of science on societies. He mentions what he calls a society of learned experts. You wont have to question anything because a learned expert will be there to tell you what is right. Quite interesting stuff. This was written around or prior to WWII I believe and it is strange how he keeps referring to Soviet Russia as a great experiment in scientific dictatorships. He ties this all in with social sciences and propaganda , resource management, population control, it is a very cold and analytic piece. Gets right to the heart of the scientific mindset. Not this romanticized Mr. Wizard idea people have grown up with.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the opposite of what most people in this thread propose. You do not personally test every hypothesis you come across. You rely on experts to decide that knowledge for you.

People should read some of Bertrand Russell's work on the Scientific Outlook. He goes into some interesting points drawn from speculating the effects of science on societies. He mentions what he calls a society of learned experts. You wont have to question anything because a learned expert will be there to tell you what is right. Quite interesting stuff. This was written around or prior to WWII I believe and it is strange how he keeps referring to Soviet Russia as a great experiment in scientific dictatorships. He ties this all in with social sciences and propaganda , resource management, population control, it is a very cold and analytic piece. Gets right to the heart of the scientific mindset. Not this romanticized Mr. Wizard idea people have grown up with.

Was more of a general you than a literal. However, that is not to say people shouldn't educate themselves on the subject enough to have a better formed opinion on what "experts" deem correct or incorrect.

I was getting at the fact that if a person can challenge and test a possibly theory, then he/she should and not take it on faith. If a person isn't in the position, he should educate himself to a point he can make an informed decision with the findings of people who can challenge and test. If a person isn't in the position and doesn't want to educate himself, he probably shouldn't go around acting as such.

[Hasbinbad]

Yeah no. Don't be mad coz your understanding of the world is suspect. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hitchens]

Something kind of odd about a grown man who lives with his mom telling everyone else about reality.