Damn Spaz. Just....damn. I'm more than marginally interested in the philosophy of science, but I just don't have time to respond point for point.

I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate about this. I was trying to suggest that science is not the only path to truth. I value logic and was also trained in the sciences, and the skepticism (yes, different than doubt) inherent to science is what attracts me to its worldview. But it's not the only ideology out there, and we shouldn't trust it blindly.

I do have to argue with you on one point, though. You claim that certain "alternatives" to truth must not be as good as science, because (to quote lazily) they have, at their heart, untestable hypotheses. But the ideology of science also contains untestable hypotheses! Every theory of knowledge has basic assumptions that cannot be tested, and science is no different. You just seem to agree with the basic assumptions of science more than you agree with the basic assumptions of religion, or some other ideology. And if that makes you feel secure about your knowledge, then so be it. But you can't knock other theories of knowledge for having "untestable hypotheses".

Why can't we be skeptical about the untestable hypotheses inherent to science?

P.S. Google up "basic assumptions science".

Every ideology has core assumptions, and a lot of scientific assumptions are untestable. Very true.

However, that wasn't my point about the ones that offer untestable hypotheses... first, I specify them as alternatives, not inferiors - the inferiority of the two examples I gave arise from themselves (not from inherent flaws of non-scientific systems of knowledge).

The insanely stupid flaw of postmodernism is that it's all criticism, not production. Postmodernism and purely deistic explanations of the world are both flawed because they offer few to no predictions about future events, and when the predictions are invalidated, nothing changes. You can argue that this isn't a flaw, but I'll point out where this belief becomes circular.

See, when it comes to untestability, it's that the PRODUCTS of the belief system are socially untestable - not just the assumptions. Yes, it's a valid argument that they can be tested on a person by person basis ("yes, this feels right to me... must be true"), but that same knowledge cannot be transmitted between individuals without a seperate revelation, and when your test depends on individuals as separate laboratories, your belief system fails because I fucking reject it. In a sense, by assuming non-empiricism, you rely then on the individual consciousness, and thus my belief system is both internally and externally complete. If empiricism is invalid, I KNOW (personally) that said non-empirical belief system is wrong, and if empiricism is valid, then a non-empirical belief system is crock. That is, if you believe both systems are possible or that the world is empirical, science wins - if you assume that your belief system is correct, and your belief system allows assumptions, that's circular, and my belief system forbids circular argumentation. That said, I'm a deist, but it's a parallel belief, not an alternative.

Also, the real kick in the nuts comes when scientific inquiry begins yielding explanations and predictions regarding other hypotheses. We're not there yet, but present mob prediction techniques are getting sufficiently advanced that one day it may be possible to predict the next major religious schism - and at that point in time I call it GG on organized religion.

For kicks, though, I pulled up the first result of your suggested Google search:



1. False. The only assumption is that in identical situations, Nature will generate a fixed distribution of potential actions/results. That is, if we perform a million truly identical experiments, we get closer to an approximation of Nature's inherent chaos. The clockwork idea is so old school.

2. Social sciences require the latter, yes, and it's really rough. I deal with that problem all the time. As far as the "We can know Nature" part, yeah, that's a core assumption.

3. Actually, not so much - only that all phenemona have a natural statistical distribution governing their properties that will not be changed (magically) 10 minutes from now.

4. Yes and no. This is a hazy one because of the definition of "self-evident". For something to be "self-evident" to a scientist would require it to be demonstrable, no?

5. True.

6. Also true.

Now, that said, they totally skipped all the most interesting ones - the foundations, for example, of causation assume that the experimenter represents an endogenous variable.

I'm not a slavish devotee to the accuracy of science - it's a human endeavor, and fundamentally flawed as such. However, I very much wish that all the postmodernists would run out of funding and the pure deists would go burn in their respective purgatories, because they cause the scientific community (and me, personally) such hassles.

ts;dp


Yes, that's "too stupid; delete post."
*SLAP* -- quoting someone's entire post just to say that.

damnit, that was my accomplishment for this week! Why do you have to go and undo all my hard work!

I didn't want to get involved in a gw discussion anyway, so ill just say this: How the fuck can i be a political stooge when I don't have a fucking clue what ANY side of the gw debate is saying. I haven't heard anything about it from anyone else since 10th grade, all I've done is look at a handful of studies, verified sources and methods, and found enough to convince me that there is nothing I need to worry about. If someone tries to say something about it, I just ignore them. I don't trust anything I hear from the media or politicians because its probably either a lie, a misconstruation(not a word, i know), or shitty paid-off/pseudo- science. I wouldn't have even known the bush administration was anti global warming if someone hadn't said it earlier. As far as I'm concerned I'm the only person who doesn't believe in it.

But thanks for deciding for me!

Oh, and I actaully haven't nor will read the rest of what spaz wrote, so call me ignorant or close-minded or afraid of being wrong, or whatever else you want, but it really isn't worth my time. I know enough to feel that even IF everything everyone is saying is true, I still don't have to worry about it, cause its gonna take care of itself sooner or later, and I happen to think warming the earth is gonna make it happen later (which is a good thing).

Spaz:

Bah, pulling up "the first" article under google search is sacrilege! Clearly because it's "the first" it must be true!

Eh, I begin to tire of this exercise. My core values/beliefs are mostly in line with the assumptions of science; I probably agree with you more than you know. But I *HATE* when I encounter anyone who isn't willing to challenge their beliefs, or find the crucial assumption they must accept or reject. I know what I think is the correct path to truth, but I'm not about to tell anyone else their path is wrong, just because their values are different. So I feel compelled to play Devil's Advocate. At some point, I can't argue with you anymore, because I fucking agree! You silly Chomsky lover.

Oh well; at least I caught you, pants down, implying science didn't have untestable hypotheses.

doodz, i r in a rush, type fast as me liddle fingers can guh-oh!



My true/false list totally includes assumptions.



That's totally the rest of the campus. Though, to be honest, the Buckley-Chomsky Firing Line IS a classic.



Untestable assumptions and untestable hypotheses are different.



And that's why you posted on it, correct? Brilliant.



Because you're quoting political rhetoric without basis in actual science, referencing what "they tell you", and even take a somewhat random jab at Al Gore.

If you want evidence of the first point, you'll have to beat that dyslexia and spend 2 minutes reading. But then again, you've proven yourself an asshat again and again, so I expect no difference now.

So the Mayans were just copying eastern civilization when they developed similar concepts independently? Just because it "seems" like I'm saying "what they tell me" in the tiny blurb I gave must mean I'm quoting them! I can't even debunk your claim because I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE what I said that could be considered to quote them! Was it when I said "the"? Maybe I did say things almost exactly like someone else has said them, but I sure as hell didn't know I was doing so. Oh, and I think Al gore is a slimy bastard, like most other politicians, sue me. And I find the fact he makes money of the global warming scare by "selling" pollution credits jeopardizes everything he says. The last person I'm going to trust on a scientific issue is some greasy politician who makes money off people believing his side. The only reason I know this about him/his stance is because of the media attention from his damn movie (which I haven't/won't bother seeing).


So I'm imperfect, sue me. I started out mentioning it, then felt like clarifying my point, then realized I had started a debate about it, then was man enough to go back to my guns, regardless of what that makes you or anyone else think about me.

So don't talk to me. I won't miss you, I might even try not to talk to you out of respect. Bottom line though, I don't care. Besides, you need me to feel better about yourself!

Interview with Noam Chomsky

Ali G and Chomsky is also a classic! For more fun, watch the silly Pirates and Emperors cartoon - it's like school house rock, except about US foreign policy! Less awesome than 3 Is A Magic Number, but so be it.

Speaking of classics, how can you forget Donald in Mathmagic Land??!?

LOL. I watched that on vhs at someone's house, it was spectacular.