Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#57042 - 07/18/11 01:33 AM Doubt
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
It can be said that doubt is necessary to retain one's sanity, that a philosophy becomes a belief system when the follower chooses to ignore the possibilities.


Unless you have the knowledge of the entire universe then one must be willing to admit that the ideas they have postulated may not be correct. A true seeker should not forget the fact that unless the event's probability is above zero the event is possible, that the individual may be .000000000000001 chance that although realistically this is unlikely to happen in the real world but is none the less possible.

Top
#57170 - 07/19/11 09:21 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
I think this is an important point. This reminds me of arguments from both theists and atheists who claim that they know 100% that there is or is not some form of a god. What this implies is godlike omniscience and throws away doubt. Satanic Atheism is unlike this all-knowing mentality and says that we cannot be 100% certain that a god exists or not, yet it takes the stance that it is highly doubtful in todays society. However, it does not throw away the possibility that there COULD be. That kind of information is currently unknowable.

Doubt is cherishable from a Satanic perspective. Such wonderful and negative connotations are evoked in one simple word.

I think that LaVey said it best, that the truth has rarely set anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation.

Top
#57191 - 07/20/11 01:26 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Lamar]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
If I'm not mistaken, every significant affirmation must be falsifiable (I believe there is a post about logical evidentiality that in this case would offer a significant light).

In other words, even the most acknowledgeable scientific law could go wrong, not necessarily that it will if it has been proven and can be replicated. Otherwise, why would we even need evidence for anything??

On the other hand, there comes a point where one must resolve his doubt for the sake of his own sanity (in a more practical note). You can only be skeptical about something for so long, especially if you've spent your time gathering evidence, and comparing points of view on the subject/matter in question.

Top
#57195 - 07/20/11 02:08 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Lamar]
Aries9 Offline
temp ban
stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 11
God is a title, like boss or president. When people say they don't believe in god I'm kind of dumbfounded. Of course you can't believe in god if you never place the title of it upon anything. It doesn't matter if it's a mental construct, spirit, or an aluminum can.

It's even more confusing when people who say they are "Lavey" Satanists say that. It's like the chapter "Wanted! God dead or alive" in the Satanic Bible never existed. Proclaimed theistic Satanists say Lavey Satanists don't believe in anything yet here it is......

"It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in god. The concept of "god" as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best"

I never seen a difference between a "Lavey" Satanist or a theistic Satanist. I've never seen Satanism as a belief system although I wouldn't say it is an absence of belief either. To me Satanism is a philosophy and practice and is a window to who we are. Spirituality is a part of human nature that I indulge in as well, with one exception. I make the rules for myself instead of being a victim of another human's dogma.

I know of nothing that I would place the title of "god" upon, either existent or imaginary.


Edited by Aries9 (07/20/11 02:14 AM)

Top
#57196 - 07/20/11 03:15 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Aries9]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Extreme skepticism can illuminate how we explain our own brain to ourselves.

If we are talking of Satanism in LaVey terms and theistic terms then I am not as such, a Satanist. There is no atheistic Satanism or theistic Satanism, for such is to worship a demiurge. There is no desire to be worshipped from a world rejected, even though the foolish demiurge is all pervasive, defiance is key. The expression of a self rejecting the offered universe and attempting to evolve into something more. Anticosmic Satanism is the highest principle of Satan (Self) as the adversary of God (Universe).

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. And as far as doubt goes, it's polarisation may be considered extreme nihilism, the state of the anticosmic paradigm. In a simple way, the substance of creation (demiurgic prison) was originally from the essence of freedom (Chaos).

And although the light is fleeting, the individual has the power to look into the shadow cast by the light of the Universe (God), The individual has the key to experiencing the pull toward the sinister emanation within, wherein lies the unmanifest, the essence of freedom (Chaos) the substance of all potentia which emerged the creation.

Such philosophical and ideological drive hosts the anticosmic impulse against the mundane sensory existence for which we are tricked to glance at by a bastard demiurge. It's destruction bares testament to the strength of the Self.

Annihilatory apotheosis.
_________________________


Top
#57199 - 07/20/11 04:20 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Hegesias]
Aries9 Offline
temp ban
stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 11
 Originally Posted By: Hegesias
The expression of a self rejecting the offered universe and attempting to evolve into something more. Anticosmic Satanism is the highest principle of Satan (Self) as the adversary of God (Universe).


This made me curious. The first part is rejection of the offered universe. What do you believe offered it exactly? Secondly the evolving into something more part. Evolving based on who or what's perception? Evolution is a process where things adapt to their environment but what you are talking about is rejecting that process to somehow move "beyond" it yet still call it evolving? The term "anti-cosmic Satanism" almost seems like a contradiction in terms in that regard. As a Satanist I never have seen myself as an adversary of the universe or nature, perhaps that is why I don't grasp this concept so well.


Edited by Aries9 (07/20/11 04:21 AM)

Top
#57200 - 07/20/11 04:28 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Aries9]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
The essence and substance of Sitra Archa and Ein Sof. If I were to explain the Sitra Archa and Ein Sof from the anticosmic paradigm, I would most certainly present the most verbose and most fragmented paradoxical antithesis, as writing such against facticity existentialism is paradoxically exactly what cannot exist. ;\)

You can understand this gobbledegook in Jungian terms as well though. This is as close a parallel I can give right now.

Occultists seem to regard shadow work as dangerous. \:D
_________________________


Top
#57555 - 07/25/11 04:47 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
"On the other hand, there comes a point where one must resolve his doubt for the sake of his own sanity (in a more practical note). You can only be skeptical about something for so long, especially if you've spent your time gathering evidence, and comparing points of view on the subject/matter in question. "

Indeed just as the concept of doubt seperates a philosophy from a belief/religion I think the difference between insanity and philosophy can also be measured in doubt. Where as a philosophy is enhanced by doubt a full delusion is hindered by it. Insanity is the product too much doubt, it is the product of this overwhelming sense of uncertainty that reduces one's ability to enjoy life.

To a belief doubt is a curse, a sin
To a philosophy doubt is a tool or an anchor
To a delusion it is a barrier, an inescapable dark over one's entire existence

Top
#57602 - 07/26/11 07:21 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Great topic, Meph9. Although I’m more about doubt than belief, both sides of the coin can lead to the same scientific problem: Both suggest interest, or subjectivism. In other words, taking a stance either way can bias the observer to the extent that he “sees” what he wants to see.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. Each of us is tainted by our own worldview, and therefore pure objectivism is a pipe dream. Ultimately, we are all driven both by desire to know the truth and by our own personal aims. The goal, if possible, is to balance the subjective and objective in such a way that we stay true to ourselves without ignoring the bigger picture.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#57617 - 07/27/11 12:09 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
I think I must say that I totally agree with you.

Remember, though, that any significant assertion must leave room for some doubt. This is the whole "falsifiable" end of the subject. My point is, even if you are convinced of something, you must leave at the very least .01% room for doubt. This is the beauty of freedom of thought. It is the very definition of "open minded". Otherwise, one risks being in a perpetual rigid dogma straight-jacket.

Top
#57910 - 08/02/11 03:36 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
AGW Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/02/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Corpus
 Originally Posted By: a. don
My point is, even if you are convinced of something, you must leave at the very least .01% room for doubt. This is the beauty of freedom of thought. It is the very definition of "open minded". Otherwise, one risks being in a perpetual rigid dogma straight-jacket.


I've always seen "fact" as negotiable. As I'm confident many others are aware, the current laws on physics have been theoretically dis-proven through looks beyond our atmosphere into space. (I say theoretically seeing as we have not been to far-away worlds and galaxies and everywhere in-between to account for these educational failure.) As such, everything that we know in the worlds of mathematics and sciences much be put back into question. In every sense, we must doubt what has already been proven, dis-proven, re-proven, and re-dis-proven.

With all that in mind, at what point, do ya'll think, we should stop standing our ground on our beliefs we feel are 99.9% correct; is it better to allow that extra .01% in and pollute the rest or keep the 99.9% pure and neglect that hundredth?

I see it as it's better to stand your ground while taking other factor(s) into account, but not necessarily accept them and swallow them whole. The fit will topple the un-fit and, at time, one's believes are inferior to another's. Nature will always balance the players so that the playing field doesn't rest and advancement continues and prevails.
_________________________
If someone teaches you hate, it's best to return the favor through teaching them fear.

Top
#57922 - 08/03/11 02:16 AM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
One thing is to be reasonably convinced of something. Another is to be hell-bent on something. The difference is that in one (the first) you leave the space for the "I stand corrected", that is, for re-eveluation and re-interpretation if new evidence would necessitate that. In the other, you "stand your ground" even against valid evidence and good reason.

One denotes good mental health, the other doesn't.

The point is, you do no think in terms if I am 99.9% correct, but rather I am 100% sure, yet leave space for re-evaluation if I'm presented with the right evidence and arguments.

And BTW, theoretically, you can "theoretically" dis-prove anything that is not a scientific la, that is, if you have the right evidence. That's the beauty of rational evidentiality. However, it's a bit more complicated when it comes to scientific law: 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.

Top
#57924 - 08/03/11 06:57 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: a. don
You CANNOT disprove a scientific law, you can only MODIFY it.


The only scientific laws that you cannot disprove are scientific laws which are true. But that doesn't say much, it's a mere tautology.
But you can disprove a scientifc law which is not true. More importantly, every scientif law MUST be falsifiable. Otherwise it's not science.

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


There is no such thing since a scientific theory does never become a scientific law.


Edited by Max Stirner (08/03/11 06:58 AM)

Top
#57925 - 08/03/11 07:20 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A scientific "law" is only true within a specific context. The moment you leave that context, something which was true, might no longer be.

D.

Top
#57926 - 08/03/11 07:53 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Diavolo]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
Of course, I have no objection to that at all. But my point still stands.

Edited by Max Stirner (08/03/11 07:53 AM)

Top
#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: 3147
 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: 3147
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: 3147
 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: 3147
 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: 199
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
#58099 - 08/10/11 12:29 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: a. don
Your argument against me is a 1-minute google search??


No. A 1 minute google search is enough to find out that a scientific theory does not become a scientific law. There is no need of complex arguments because this is a simple matter of definitions.

 Originally Posted By: a. don
There is a process. It's called scientific induction.


And it's a part of the scientific method. But it does not transform a scientific theory into a law.
If you want to prove that such a thing happens, please, bring me a reliable source where it says so.

 Originally Posted By: a.don
And there is a difference between law and theory.


When did I deny that?
I might have some trouble with english but in the sentence "A scientific theory does never become a scientific law" there is nothing to indicate that I think there aren't any differences between a theory and a law.


Please, if you don't want to do a 1 minute google search at least click this link and read what it says.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Even better, you don't have to bother clicking, just read this:

"Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory."

Check another page, a dictionary, an encyclopaedia, whatever you like. It will always say the same thing "a scientific theory does not become a law". Maybe the word you're looking for is "hypothesis".


Edited by Max Stirner (08/10/11 12:36 PM)

Top
#58143 - 08/12/11 03:07 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
I stand corrected as far as my lack of knowledge of hypothesis and theory. For that, I apologize.

However, here's a google quote:

"Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse."

"Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science"

Absolute is the key word here.

My point is, a hypothesis once proven and converted into law cannot be disproven - Unless however you try to apply a law proven in one environment to another, for example the laws of gravity proven on earth will not be the same in Jupiter.

Now as far as theory is concerned:

"A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers"

And what I was trying to debate from the beginning:

"A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole"

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Perdonatemi: L'umiltà è la corona de tutte le virtù ;\)

Top
#58152 - 08/13/11 06:50 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
The only problem that I have with your last post is this:

How and when can you say that a law has been proven?


Edited by Max Stirner (08/13/11 07:11 AM)

Top
#58157 - 08/13/11 01:37 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
conservation of mass?
grand unifying theory?

Top
#58162 - 08/13/11 03:54 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Quick reply intended towards the last 3-4 posts.

There is a false dichotomy being offered between "law" and "theory". In geometry, these are termed "axioms" and "theorems" accordingly. The underlying idea, though, goes back to basic philosophy: not everything can be proven; some things are assumed.

It's a dirty secret to be sure (a degree of rationalism infects all philosophies), but also an unavoidable one.

To Meph9: neither of these have been proven (taking the term in a rigorous sense). The former has been verified empirically insofar as it's been tried, and the latter is, to now, a pipedream. But perhaps you meant quantum chromodynamics in the second case, who knows.

Look folks, we all take a lot of shit for granted when it comes to science (big bang, anyone), yet we have trouble taking similar claims even seriously when they're proposed outside of the Method. Again, the dirty little secret is that scientists do this all the time, yet they seem to be immune from the charge of fideism.

Paint with one brush, or hang up your philosophical coveralls . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#58165 - 08/13/11 04:24 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
Let's recur to google quotes once more:

"LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
"

And:

"Theory & Law

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a law uses a handful of fundamental concepts and equations to define the rules governing a set of phenomena
."

If something has been proven over years of repeated observation and testing in a lab, it has been proven true, at least under the circumstances observed and tested.
You cannot disprove something that has been proven true under the same circumstances.

However, and this probably is your argument, what does change is the perspective in the scientific community based on new discoveries, that is, new discoveries change the implications.

"Scientific Paradigms

Once a scientific theory is established, it is very hard to get the scientific community to discard it. In physics, the concept of ether as a medium for light wave transmission ran into serious opposition in the late 1800s, but it was not disregarded until the early 1900s, when Einstein proposed alternate explanations for the wave nature of light that did not rely upon a medium for transmission.

The science philosopher Thomas Kuhn developed the term scientific paradigm to explain the working set of theories under which science operates. He did extensive work on the scientific revolutions that take place when one paradigm is overturned in favor of a new set of theories. His work suggests that the very nature of science changes when these paradigms are significantly different. The nature of physics prior to relativity and quantum mechanics is fundamentally different from that after their discovery, just as biology prior to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is fundamentally different from the biology that followed it. The very nature of the inquiry changes.

One consequence of the scientific method is to try to maintain consistency in the inquiry when these revolutions occur and to avoid attempts to overthrow existing paradigms on ideological grounds
."

Also,

"As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."

The above quote regards falsifiability. Falsifiability is a concept meant to protect science from dogma. But what is wrong in this case, in other words, to what extent can something proven be proven wrong?

This quote sheds some light on the situation:

"As far as "detractors", the nature of science is to question things, nothing is (or should be) sacrosanct. But, this does not necessarily mean that just because someone questions a law (or theory) that the law/theory in question is wrong. Was Einstein a detractor of Newton when he showed that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything (wasn't that why quantum mechanics came into existence)? Just because Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" in some situations, does that mean it is useless? I don't think so!! If certain aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g., natural selection, gradualism) has "detractors" (and I mean among people who are qualified to argue about it -- among biologists), does that mean natural selection (or the idea of biological evolution in general) is wrong? NO!! Scientific knowledge is strengthened by people questioning what is or has been accepted"

Don't get me wrong, I never argued in favor of scientific dogma, yet what has been proven is still proven, especially if it is a law (theories are a lot more complicated).The key point being here, proven laws and theories are not necessarily paradigmatic for all ages (especially with the scientific community continually making breakthroughs), but rather they are continually modified with new perspectives (and their implications) based on new evidence. This is the very nature of science.

Now that being stated, can you provide me any instance where a proven law was disproven completely?? I'll bet you that many laws have been challenged and the paradigm surrounding such were changed, and new theories and laws were produced, but the original laws or theories still hold true at least to some extent.

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html


 Originally Posted By: Max Stirner
The only problem that I have with your last post is this:

How and when can you say that a law has been proven?


Check it out here:

http://physics.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/a/scimethod.htm

and

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/qt/experiments.htm


Edited by a. don (08/13/11 04:30 PM)

Top
#58168 - 08/13/11 04:50 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
A scientific law des not need to work 100% everywhere across the universe forever it just has to work virtually everywhere. The simple fact is that there can always be an exception to any rule. Combine that with the fact that the universe is thought to be infinite and ever expanding it would be impossible to test an idea everywhere, thus to consider something as a law in this case the idea need only theoretically.
Because literally testing everywhere would be literally impossible. So if you consider a pure and strict defenition of a "scientific law" one could say that there are and can not ever be a true law. Fortunetally science leaves this semantics game to philosophers.

Top
#58169 - 08/13/11 04:58 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
@a. don

Very quick reply: what you are citing is an old version of epistemology applied to science. Contemporary epistemology has abandoned the concept of proven with something like an asymptotic tendency to truth. This law is proven in the sense that every single piece of data that we have in that context proves it but not in the sense of reaching some kind of absolute truth (even in a single precise context).
To get an idea of the problem behind "proving something" you can read for example the Munchausen Trilemma and the critique against inductive reasoning by Hume.

Top
#58170 - 08/13/11 05:07 PM 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
Now that being stated, can you provide me any instance where a proven law was disproven completely??


Probably not, because there is no such animal as a "proven law". Besides, you're trading on ambiguities with your usage of "completely". A "law" is a generalization over phenomena which holds completely, or in each and every instance. Due to the nature of the problem of induction, this means such laws must be deductive (i.e. rationalistic) rather than empirical per se. Hence, they do not differ from "theory" in the most important regard, and are subject to falsification just the same.

Terminological history would be your friend here, as the concept of "law" (more ancient, yet primitive) ultimately gave way to the concept of "theory" (more modern and precise). Such things were termed "laws" during the time period when Rationalism was ascendant in the philosophy of the West, and later "theories" when empiricism came to dominate.

To return, can I give you a disproven "law" in science? I'll do you one better: I'll given you a disproven law in logic (more deductively rigorous than empirical science), which argues a fortiori. The Law of the Excluded Middle, which is nullified in all Intuitionist-type systems.

JK
_________________________



Top
#58176 - 08/13/11 08:15 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
This is only proves my point. Back in the day of Aristotle, there was quite a different understanding of science and its mechanisms. As a matter of fact, there was a blurred line between philosophy and science.

Today, there is a different understanding, new evidence and different perspectives, in this case, for example, Brouwer's intuitionism, have shown that the law of excluded middle doesn't hold true all the time. However, the law of excluded middle holds always holds true in two-valued logic. This video is quite interesting (yet rudely boring-Oh my God, I just contradicted the law of contradiction! )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s20ki6Dtjlo

Top
#58177 - 08/13/11 08:25 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
@Max

"In Albert's view the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth. After all, you need to assume some basic rules of logical inference in order to derive his result, and in doing so must either abandon the pursuit of "certain" justification, as above, or attempt to justify these rules, etc. He suggests that it has to be taken as true as long as nobody has come forward with a truth which is scrupulously justified as a certain truth. Several philosophers defied Albert's challenge; his responses to such criticisms can be found in his long addendum to his Treatise on Critical Reason (see below) and later articles (see publication list)."

I think I must concur with Meph9 as far as scientists leaving the semantics for philosophers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_Trilemma

(Note: I am not exactly a proponent of wikipedia, but sometimes I find something useful there)


Edited by a. don (08/13/11 08:31 PM)

Top
#58185 - 08/14/11 08:45 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: a. don
I think I must concur with Meph9 as far as scientists leaving the semantics for philosophers.


That's for sure. The intention of my latest questione (and reply) was just to point out that the foundations of science are not so solid as some people would like us to think.
Obviously once you have accepted the premises you're on solid ground.

Top
#58187 - 08/14/11 12:04 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
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: Max Stirner
 Originally Posted By: a. don
I think I must concur with Meph9 as far as scientists leaving the semantics for philosophers.


That's for sure. The intention of my latest questione (and reply) was just to point out that the foundations of science are not so solid as some people would like us to think.
Obviously once you have accepted the premises you're on solid ground.


I'm not sure if the immediately above was tongue-in-cheek. It must be, right? Let's examine:

"Obviously once you have accepted the premises you're on solid ground."

Really? Solid ground?

Assumptive ground makes better sense. And really, I'm not sure which "premisses" we're accepting and whether it's merely being done so for the sake of argument or for something more ontologically pressing.

Point being: semantics (concept interpretation) is of the utmost importance in any theoretical structure provided. If you can't tell me what "shit" is, then you will never be able to understand the fact that I just PWNED your "shit".

Bottom line: you cannot escape philosophy, it's the discipline that gives meaning to your meanderings.

JK
_________________________



Top
#58188 - 08/14/11 01:29 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
Look don't get me wrong, philosophy is beautiful. But the beauty of it does not consist in the actual results of a certain assertion, but rather the process of logic and argument employed in attaining such. In science you strive for results, even if in the future the whole scientific perspective shifts causing the results to be interpreted differently. This is totally different from philosophy.

I mean, if we are to accept everything that every philosopher has stated and argued as true, WE WOULD GO CRAZY. For example, it turns out that we come from nothing, we come from something, we used to exist in the world of ideas before we actually existed on earth, we don't exist, cogito ergo sum, to will is to be, nothing can be known, etc.

Some arguments may apply to certain circumstances, but in others they don't. In the end, you have to make up your mind in something, especially if you are into more practical sciences. As far obtaining results, some may be able to intuit, others observe and learn, others argue employing logic, others argue not employing tertium non datur logic, others just might bump into something accidentally.

Bottom line, just because there are those who find it ok to argue indefinitely (based on ever-more existing valid grounds) concluding that nothing can be known (including the latter statement!), there are those who strive for factual results. And I think that's the whole point.


Edited by a. don (08/14/11 01:44 PM)

Top
#58207 - 08/15/11 06:53 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
@Jason King

Let's see if this time I can explain myself better: science is a system through which knowledge is obtained. Like every system it has some premises (e.g. the universe is knowable). You can either refute or accept those premises. Let's take the example of someone who refutes them, the solipsists: the solipsists can criticize everything the scientists say just telling them "Blah blah blah the material world does not exist" while the scientists will reply "shut up and stop doing mental masturabiont".
But since the two systems are based on different premises (which are fundamentally a priori) nobody can rationally establish who's right. The scientists can succesfully criticize and confute the solipsists's system (or vice-versa) only if the conclusions they reach do not follow from the premises they established (except if the system is not based on the laws of logic but I think you get what I'm saying).

So you have accepted science's premises you are on "solid ground" in the sense that it's a well developed system.

P.S. When you read "nobody can rationally establish who's right" do not mistake me for a rationalist.

Top
#58212 - 08/15/11 11:15 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
To the both of you . . .

Science requires interpretation. You can conduct certain experiments all day long, repeat them, rinse them, and do them all over again. Yet without a theoretical (read philosophical) basis of interpretation, those results will have no meaning.

I can take the simplest of theoretical constructs and demonstrate this. F=MA. Force = Mass times Acceleration. Now, let's analyze . . .

Acceleration is the only well-defined term here (just the mathematical derivative of velocity/movement). Mass is poorly defined, but we can substitute something like "resistance to acceleration/coupling with the gravitational field" and be left with what exactly?

Upon analysis, "force" seems to dissolve into a morass of unintelligibility. It is a convenient stage mask.

So what about something a bit more substantial? Take C. Why is the speed of massless "particles" in a vacuum the exchange rate between "mass" and "energy"? Maybe, we combine "massless" with "mass" in an inverse equation and reach a foundation (i.e. energy) which we still don't understand. So what have we accomplished?

Look, dudes, if you think poking the thing is all that matters, then why do you poke it? It resists you at every turn; prodding you to better models, all the while developing paradigm shifts which send you deeper into the Abyss of Being. I repeat, science requires interpretation. Experiment requires a model within which it can be comprehended.

JK
_________________________



Top
#58213 - 08/15/11 01:25 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Jason King]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
When exactly did I say (or imply) that science does not require interpretation?

I think I get the misunderstanding, let's see if this solves it:


The solid ground is like a project for a house. Without someone who takes the project and says "This line means "wall" " it's completely useless. But you must have one and if it's well developed, you have already done a big part of the job and you're in the position to start building( with the interpretation system).


Edited by Max Stirner (08/15/11 01:50 PM)

Top
#62239 - 12/06/11 04:30 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
TillTheDayIDie Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/03/11
Posts: 23
I think its only in uncertainty that one can experience beauty. So, for that penultimate reason, uncertainty is to be admired and valued greatly. However, the paradox is that in beauty you find conviction, and so uncertainty in your standard intentional belief systems really spells the utmost knowledge of the truth.

Sort of an epistemic "It's only when you lose everything that you are free to gain anything."

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


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

Generated in 0.06 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 61 queries. Zlib compression disabled.