Page 2 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#57928 - 08/03/11 11:23 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
AGW Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/02/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Corpus
 Originally Posted By: a. don
You CANNOT disprove a scientific law, you can only MODIFY it.

There's a strict procedure for a scientific theory to become a scientific law.


Fact: The world is flat.

That fact came into the world under every bit of logic the people of the time had. It made sense, was absolutely reasonable, and became scientific law (more or less, for the time.) All in all, it was hardly questioned because there wasn't any point to question it; it's undoubtable true.

Of course, we later shot rocket up high, dropped satellites in orbit, and proved that everyone who still clung to this fact was dead wrong. Scientific law had been dis-proven pretty well, if you ask me. The world is round, by the way. Unsure whether or not you got that memo.

 Originally Posted By: a. don
There's a strict procedure for a scientific theory to become a scientific law.


Tell me all about this procedure. By my understanding, there's no such thing. Scientific law is declared (by my understanding) once all evidence submitted to the scientific community as simply a set of theories. IF most of the nerds in labs feel it's all good, then it's scientific law. There is no "strict procedure."
_________________________
If someone teaches you hate, it's best to return the favor through teaching them fear.

Top
#57931 - 08/03/11 01:10 PM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3063
 Quote:
That fact came into the world under every bit of logic the people of the time had. It made sense, was absolutely reasonable, and became scientific law (more or less, for the time.)

Correction, it wasn't viewed as a fact. It was believed that the earth was flat since they holy book described it as such.
During the period of ancient Greece it was already proven the Earth was spherical. Aristotle in 330 BC already accepeted the sperical earth model on emperical grounds.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/lp/unit2.html
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#57954 - 08/04/11 12:20 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Dimitri]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
Thanks Dimitri.

One must understand the difference between a theory and scientific law, and the logic behind it.

Obviously there is always room for doubt thanks to the concept of falsifiability. But look up the process of scientific induction. Once a theory has gone through that, and CAN be proven by means of replication, whether in a lab or in a scientific context, it becomes a LAW.

Now don't get me wrong, just because it is a law, doesn't mean that there is no error. However, if you can prove the error and re-interpret it, chances are that you are not going to DISPROVE anything, because it already has been proven, but rather modify what is right, and discard whatever is erroneous, or simply build upon what is already correct.

Top
#57960 - 08/04/11 05:19 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: a.don
One must understand the difference between a theory and scientific law, and the logic behind it.


And you are not doing that.

 Originally Posted By: a. don
Once a theory has gone through that, and CAN be proven by means of replication, whether in a lab or in a scientific context, it becomes a LAW.


No it does not.
A scientific law is a descriptive statement that once was a descriptive hypotesis which was "proven" trough inductive reasoning. e.g. Two bodies attract each other.
A scientific theory is a series of explanatory statements that once was a series of explanatory hypotesis which was "proven" through the scientific method. e.g. A model that explains how two bodies attract each other.

In two phrases:
A law is an empirical fact.
A theory is an explanation of the empirical fact.

Newton's law of universal gravitation, Thermodynamics laws, Ohm's law (....) were never theories.

Top
#57963 - 08/04/11 08:46 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
 Originally Posted By: Max Stirner
[quote=a.don]
In two phrases:
A law is an empirical fact.
A theory is an explanation of the empirical fact.




Not necessarily, a scientific theory may serve to explain certain phenomena and contain a process of logic as well as scientific laws. Whereas scientific laws simply reflect the results of repeated observations.

Major difference, for this implies that a theory may contain assumptions regarding relationships between laws and observations.

A law does not contain such. It's just the whole empirical "trial and error" method based upon unproven theories until proven.



Edited by a. don (08/04/11 08:47 AM)
Edit Reason: grammar mistake

Top
#57964 - 08/04/11 09:08 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3063
General reply.

Sometimes doing a quick search might give an edge.
It also helps to avoid circular arguments and picking in on trivialities.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#57965 - 08/04/11 09:29 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: a. don
 Originally Posted By: Max Stirner
[quote=a.don]
In two phrases:
A law is an empirical fact.
A theory is an explanation of the empirical fact.




Not necessarily, a scientific theory may serve to explain certain phenomena and contain a process of logic as well as scientific laws. Whereas scientific laws simply reflect the results of repeated observations.

Major difference, for this implies that a theory may contain assumptions regarding relationships between laws and observations.

A law does not contain such. It's just the whole empirical "trial and error" method based upon unproven theories until proven.



I'll take this. But I'll shatter it on a different angle . . .

"Empirical fact" - what does this mean? It is in "fact" an oxymoron, once one understands epistemology.

Empiricism is a methodology based in what? Observation. That which is sensed/intuited/observed is given prime place in a theoretical model of "how things are". And this view has its own can of worms, in that it accepts the dichotomy loosely referred to as noumena/phenomena.

What this entails is that all phenomenological (as opposed to rationalist) models are ultimately equivocal, turning on the notion of self/perceiver, and hence reduce to an idealism unless checked by an axiom (or axioms) higher up in the chain of inference. And the latter reduces, of course, to a species of rationalism.

The problem with rationalism (of any stripe) is how we separate it from an isomorphic idealism. In other words, how do we separate

n: X is true

from

n': X is perceived to be true

Be careful, though, Christians have taken this and run with it in the morality debate . . .

Solution: stop fearing idealism.

We like to call ourselves LHP, yet we fall for the rationalist/materialist gambit at every turn. Is there something so wrong with the idea (pun) that YOU create the universe? Are you afraid of your power?

JK
_________________________



Top
#57966 - 08/04/11 12:35 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Dimitri]
AGW Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/02/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Corpus
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
That fact came into the world under every bit of logic the people of the time had. It made sense, was absolutely reasonable, and became scientific law (more or less, for the time.)

Correction, it wasn't viewed as a fact. It was believed that the earth was flat since they holy book described it as such.
During the period of ancient Greece it was already proven the Earth was spherical. Aristotle in 330 BC already accepeted the sperical earth model on emperical grounds.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/lp/unit2.html


And are you saying that what was written in the "Holy Book" was no regarded as fact? Whether or not the world was flat was easily testable by anyone of any time. I'm sure that if you or I or anyone else stood in a field as flat as the eye could see, using only our senses of sight and logic, we would conclude the Earth was indisputably flat.

As for Aristotle and other civilizations (I assume you don't just mean Greece) knowing that the Earth wasn't flat, very true. I stand corrected in that regard.
_________________________
If someone teaches you hate, it's best to return the favor through teaching them fear.

Top
#57971 - 08/04/11 03:08 PM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3063
 Quote:
And are you saying that what was written in the "Holy Book" was no regarded as fact?

People indeed regarded it as a fact because it was said by the clerics and other highstanding men of religion and power.
What is seemingly forgotten, even in modern society, is the plain knowledge that even if a whole group claims something truthfull it does not become an indisputable fact.

It's also wrong to say people said it was a fact the earth was flat, it's more correct when saying the majority believed it was flat ;\)

What damage uneducated minds can cause...
 Quote:
I'm sure that if you or I or anyone else stood in a field as flat as the eye could see, using only our senses of sight and logic, we would conclude the Earth was indisputably flat.

Then I would point at the fact that the base of the tower in the distance for some reason is invisible and only the top is sticking out. I blend in a little bit of pythagoras and you'll get your emperic evidence of a spherical earth.
Learning to observe is handy.. fascination in the smallest things can grant great knowledge if you know what you are observing.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#57976 - 08/04/11 06:50 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Dimitri]
AGW Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/02/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Corpus
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
It's also wrong to say people said it was a fact the earth was flat, it's more correct when saying the majority believed it was flat ;\)


At what is any sort of fact or belief or (sometimes) reason for doubt derived from? How is any group generally regarded as? The majority.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Then I would point at the fact that the base of the tower in the distance for some reason is invisible and only the top is sticking out. I blend in a little bit of pythagoras and you'll get your emperic evidence of a spherical earth.
Learning to observe is handy.. fascination in the smallest things can grant great knowledge if you know what you are observing.


If it's invisible, then no top is sticking out. Stating what I said and you responded too is based on matters of sight and all you would have brought up is (what would then be considered) a theory. The only way that it could be proven is with a set of binoculars and you going over, building the tower x feet high, having me stand x miles away*. Of course, my uneducated mind will need indisputable proof and stand at his point until it is proven sufficiently incorrect.

-AGW

*Based on the general measurement rule stating "the bottom 1 foot of an objects isn't in sight when viewing an object 1 mile away. The same goes for 2, 3, and so forth" that I read in some Geology book in High School.


Edited by AGW (08/04/11 06:51 PM)
_________________________
If someone teaches you hate, it's best to return the favor through teaching them fear.

Top
#57977 - 08/04/11 09:42 PM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I don't care about whether the world is spherical or flat, it's both and none, depending on where you stand, and right now the earth is a speck of dust, if you put your perspective out that far, or it's the immediate surroundings your senses perceive right now.

Why does there have to be an agreeable medium about what the earth "is"? Probably because everyone's view of their immediate surroundings didn't seem alike through the medium, or rather, limitation of communication.

The earth only looks round because your eyes aren't meant to look at it that far away, it's unnecessary for your natural design. Upon the necessary inspection, it all unfolds to its proper dimensions as flat as was the design of nature for your existence. Hell lets go crazy and look at the earth as an insignificant particle in the sea of infinity, but with the nature of infinity being encountered down through quark size and up through cosmic size, nothing has anything to be measured on but the axis of human perception, so let's just pretend the earth is a nice medium we can all agree on "round".

So, further and further out we went to get the agreeable perspective whilst still keeping it marginally interesting and open to interpretation just enough, we wouldn't want to think of the earth as a speck of dust now would we. with human specks of dust in a totally indifferent universe? Toys for malevolent forces of nature to play with.

Matter as illusion. Everything as non-local subatomic particles, field energy. The only matter that matters is a woman's body, why waste time on worldly knowledge? It's only going to merge into an agreeable medium of irrefutable error for which wise men can concur to actualise further abstract absurdity.

We are smiling on a mass grave site planet, and we regard selective amnesia as profound.

All that is true is the will to power, all that is relevant, everything else is abstract convenient fiction, monotonous absurdity, technology and absurd things like art and morality, distractions from natural pursuits.

I do not wish to play civilisations dehumanising games. It feels severely unnatural to act considerate or any other such self-deceiving lies. The fact of having the human language distract my innate drives is enough to make me doubt the legitimacy of thinking in such a way.

Perspectivism can be argued all day in trusted methods, I prefer nihilism, for clearly, we are the faulty apparatus for which conducting all experiments is limited to its banal design, and so, nothing is true, no matter how logical or irrefutable it may seem, mathematics, telescopes, science, all that order is junk, flawed, by the limits of human perception. If one chooses to formalise things without abstraction, we are made to live in this ecosystem to fuck the opposite sex and visit wreckage to other living things, the contrast between that stimulation and the utter numbness of anything otherwise ought to tell you that.

I don't doubt that somewhere along the lines of evolution, whatever that is, man became enthralled with his ability to tell bizarre stories to his own mind, hence the ugly mechanised shit you see around you devoid of rampant female nudity and frenzied bloodshed, except to see it on the news and think it's profound instead of daily bread, how tragic that man has "improved" his mind in the semblance of unintentional comedy.

I doubt, I also doubt anyone will regard this illiterate scrawl as meaningful.
_________________________


Top
#57980 - 08/05/11 02:29 AM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3063
 Quote:
At what is any sort of fact or belief or (sometimes) reason for doubt derived from? How is any group generally regarded as? The majority.

And that is a wrong attitude. Doubt stems from a lack of knowledge, be it by being uneducated or simply yet to explained mechanisms (as in advanced physics).
Facts are always out there in the open, being lazy to research makes doubt raise (as the disinformation starts to spread with an equal rate).

 Quote:
If it's invisible, then no top is sticking out. Stating what I said and you responded too is based on matters of sight and all you would have brought up is (what would then be considered) a theory.

Read closer, I said:
 Quote:
Then I would point at the fact that the base of the tower in the distance for some reason is invisible and only the top is sticking out.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#57981 - 08/05/11 03:58 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
/cut


That was just an oversimplifaction which only purpose was to get a.don to understand that a scientific theory does never become a scientific law, and that is a fact. There is no precise process through which that happens because it does never happen and he could have known that simply making a 1 minute google search.

Empirical fact just was just intended as "observation" in its scientific meaning.

Top
#58012 - 08/07/11 02:17 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
Your argument against me is a 1-minute google search?? There is a process. It's called scientific induction. And there is a difference between law and theory. One strictly reflects results in the laboratory, and the other combines the use of logic and observation of scientific laws.

I think I have addressed the issue accordingly it in my previous threads. Please take more than just a minute to corroborate for yourself.

Top
#58040 - 08/08/11 08:19 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Dimitri]
when7iseleven Offline
member


Registered: 07/11/11
Posts: 186
Loc: High Peak, UK
“And that is a wrong attitude. Doubt stems from a lack of knowledge, be it by being uneducated or simply yet to explained mechanisms (as in advanced physics).

Facts are always out there in the open, being lazy to research makes doubt raise (as the disinformation starts to spread with an equal rate).”

Agreed that doubt stems from a lack of knowledge but it’s a little more than that, it stems from a knowledge that there is a lack of knowledge, “we don’t know what we don’t know”; uneducated can very often mean a lack of willingness to become educated, “we don’t if there’s anything we don’t know, & we don’t care”.

Doubt is the engine of endeavour & is one of the greatest strengths of what it is to be human; the neural connections that makes us doubt, that makes us think that the grass on this side of the fence might not be quite as green as the grass on the other side is fundamental in giving humanity it’s privileged place in the Universe.


Edited by when7iseleven (08/08/11 08:21 AM)
Edit Reason: when will I learn....spaces!
_________________________
There but for the Grace of I go I

Top
Page 2 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 29 queries. Zlib compression disabled.