|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 14:35:20 GMT
Anything outside the scope of science, is belief WIHTOUT proof. And for things not possible to prove, that is an extraordinary ability. Which means that those who use science to 'prove' something that cannot be proven, have not made a leap of faith. Freon Proof only truly exist in mathematics. Science provides evidence through experimental repetition. History cannot be repeated. What we know to be historically true we do not know through the scientific method. That first line is false. A Mathematical proof is an incorrect use of that term with respect to how it is being used in this conversation. It is so blatantly obvious when someone who has no training in science, tries to use it. You just sound like your trying to come off as knowledgeable, and instead, you sound worse than ignorant. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 14:37:31 GMT
Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Science is not our only means to truth. Is it? You're putting the cart before the ox. First, you need to figure out what truth even means. And then, if we agree on that definition, the rest actually explains itself. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 17:20:16 GMT
Proof only truly exist in mathematics. Science provides evidence through experimental repetition. History cannot be repeated. What we know to be historically true we do not know through the scientific method. That first line is false. A Mathematical proof is an incorrect use of that term with respect to how it is being used in this conversation. It is so blatantly obvious when someone who has no training in science, tries to use it. You just sound like you're trying to come off as knowledgeable, and instead, you sound worse than ignorant. Freon You're just imposing your definition of the word on my meaning. Are you allowed to do that? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 17:21:04 GMT
Science is not our only means to truth. Is it? You're putting the cart before the ox. First, you need to figure out what truth even means. And then, if we agree on that definition, the rest actually explains itself. Freon I don't disagree with you on that. Is there any case in which science is the only means to truth? What case would that be? For what definition of truth would that apply? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 17:39:14 GMT
That first line is false. A Mathematical proof is an incorrect use of that term with respect to how it is being used in this conversation. It is so blatantly obvious when someone who has no training in science, tries to use it. You just sound like you're trying to come off as knowledgeable, and instead, you sound worse than ignorant. Freon You're just imposing your definition of the word on my meaning. Are you allowed to do that? No, I'm actually using the scientifically ACCEPTED definition of a mathematical proof, vs your trying to have it mean something very different. Stick to religion, Mercy, you don't know science AT ALL. You should be embarrassed by this error, but you'll double down. Just like the far right does when they are wrong... Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 17:43:31 GMT
You're putting the cart before the ox. First, you need to figure out what truth even means. And then, if we agree on that definition, the rest actually explains itself. Freon I don't disagree with you on that. Is there any case in which science is the only means to truth? What case would that be? For what definition of truth would that apply? Science ONLY deals with the physical world, and therefore, only physical truths. All scientific truths MUST have physical evidence to support them, must be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and must be constantly challenged to insure perpetual accuracy by those who leverage the scientific method. Metaphysical truths CANNOT be proven, and therefore, are the purview of philosophies like religion. They are not repeatable or predictable, and they abhor being challenged for accuracy, as well as being proven using the scientific method. Which means that if you try to use one to prove the other, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the physical world, vs the metaphysical one. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 9, 2024 19:26:01 GMT
Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Science is not our only means to truth. Is it? Science is not a means to truth at all. Truth is for math & logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 19:41:12 GMT
You're just imposing your definition of the word on my meaning. Are you allowed to do that? No, I'm actually using the scientifically ACCEPTED definition of a mathematical proof, vs your trying to have it mean something very different. Stick to religion, Mercy, you don't know science AT ALL. You should be embarrassed by this error, but you'll double down. Just like the far right does when they are wrong... Freon It is arrogant for you to assume that your definition is correct and that your definition is what defines what I am saying. Sorry if this is confusing for you; I'm paraphrasing my freonbale playbook. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 19:41:55 GMT
I don't disagree with you on that. Is there any case in which science is the only means to truth? What case would that be? For what definition of truth would that apply? Science ONLY deals with the physical world, and therefore, only physical truths. All scientific truths MUST have physical evidence to support them, must be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and must be constantly challenged to insure perpetual accuracy by those who leverage the scientific method. Metaphysical truths CANNOT be proven, and therefore, are the purview of philosophies like religion. They are not repeatable or predictable, and they abhor being challenged for accuracy, as well as being proven using the scientific method. Which means that if you try to use one to prove the other, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the physical world, vs the metaphysical one. Freon I agree with you. It sounds like you are arguing against me. What makes you think I think something different from what you've stated? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 19:42:28 GMT
Science is not our only means to truth. Is it? Science is not a means to truth at all. Truth is for math & logic. That's it? Anything outside math and logic cannot be understood to be "true"? |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 9, 2024 19:43:24 GMT
You're just imposing your definition of the word on my meaning. Are you allowed to do that? No, I'm actually using the scientifically ACCEPTED definition of a mathematical proof, vs your trying to have it mean something very different. A mathematical proof is a series of statements, each of which is true according to fundamental axioms of mathematics. For example, I can prove that every number divisible by 8 is even: 1) Suppose n is a natural number (1, 2, 3, 4....) divisible by 8. 2) 8 is divisible by 2, because 2 * 4 = 8. 3) If n is divisible by 8, it must also be divisible by 2. 4) By definition, every natural number divisible by 2 is an even number. 5) Thus, every n divisible by 8 is an even number. QED. Each step is a logical argument according to the math rules. By contrast, science builds models to predict the workings of the natural world. The models require evidence from the natural world and should predict the sort of things that we will find on further investigation. For example, in 1964, scientists built a model predicting that we should find an elementary particle that gives mass to other particles. In 2012, researchers at CERN in Switzerland found it: the Higgs boson. Math is, obviously, spectacularly useful in science. But math proofs and scientific models work quite differently. There is no such thing as a "scientifically accepted definition of a mathematical proof". |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 9, 2024 19:45:15 GMT
Science is not a means to truth at all. Truth is for math & logic. That's it? Anything outside math and logic cannot be understood to be "true"? No, I'm containing my argument to the topic of math/science. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 20:19:54 GMT
Science ONLY deals with the physical world, and therefore, only physical truths. All scientific truths MUST have physical evidence to support them, must be repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and must be constantly challenged to insure perpetual accuracy by those who leverage the scientific method. Metaphysical truths CANNOT be proven, and therefore, are the purview of philosophies like religion. They are not repeatable or predictable, and they abhor being challenged for accuracy, as well as being proven using the scientific method. Which means that if you try to use one to prove the other, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the physical world, vs the metaphysical one. Freon I agree with you. It sounds like you are arguing against me. What makes you think I think something different from what you've stated? I'm not arguing with you at all. You asked a question. I provided an answer. The 'you' in my response is not directed at you personally. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 20:21:18 GMT
No, I'm actually using the scientifically ACCEPTED definition of a mathematical proof, vs your trying to have it mean something very different. Stick to religion, Mercy, you don't know science AT ALL. You should be embarrassed by this error, but you'll double down. Just like the far right does when they are wrong... Freon It is arrogant for you to assume that your definition is correct and that your definition is what defines what I am saying. Sorry if this is confusing for you; I'm paraphrasing my freonbale playbook. Arrogance is irrelevant. If I said it was naive of you to assume that your definition is correct, it would be true, but also irrelevant. Can we please stick to the topic instead of ad hominem conjectures. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 20:25:59 GMT
No, I'm actually using the scientifically ACCEPTED definition of a mathematical proof, vs your trying to have it mean something very different. A mathematical proof is a series of statements, each of which is true according to fundamental axioms of mathematics. For example, I can prove that every number divisible by 8 is even: 1) Suppose n is a natural number (1, 2, 3, 4....) divisible by 8. 2) 8 is divisible by 2, because 2 * 4 = 8. 3) If n is divisible by 8, it must also be divisible by 2. 4) By definition, every natural number divisible by 2 is an even number. 5) Thus, every n divisible by 8 is an even number. QED. Each step is a logical argument according to the math rules. By contrast, science builds models to predict the workings of the natural world. The models require evidence from the natural world and should predict the sort of things that we will find on further investigation. For example, in 1964, scientists built a model predicting that we should find an elementary particle that gives mass to other particles. In 2012, researchers at CERN in Switzerland found it: the Higgs boson. Math is, obviously, spectacularly useful in science. But math proofs and scientific models work quite differently. There is no such thing as a "scientifically accepted definition of a mathematical proof". I agree with everything you just wrote, sans the part where you criticize my statement, which you actually just demonstrated to be perfectly accurate. You need to understand your audience. When I am communicating with Mercy, I cannot use scientific terminology, because his background is Religion. I would be making assumptions that he understood what I, and it seems you, take for granted. My point was that logical truth, as one would use in mathematics, is distinct from both scientific 'truth' (I would NEVER use that word to describe science), vs how a lay person would use that word, and Mercy was trying to say they are the same. You literally proved my point with your response, so thank you. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 20:31:12 GMT
I agree with you. It sounds like you are arguing against me. What makes you think I think something different from what you've stated? I'm not arguing with you at all. You asked a question. I provided an answer. The 'you' in my response is not directed at you personally. Freon Ah, okay, that was unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 20:38:49 GMT
It is arrogant for you to assume that your definition is correct and that your definition is what defines what I am saying. Sorry if this is confusing for you; I'm paraphrasing my freonbale playbook. Arrogance is irrelevant. If I said it was naive of you to assume that your definition is correct, it would be true, but also irrelevant. Can we please stick to the topic instead of ad hominem conjectures. Freon Okay, let's take it back to earlier in the conversation where the question was raised how we know what is true. All of a sudden you and Running Deer are restricting the conversation to science or logic/mathematics. But that wasn't the conversation. I specifically asked if only science can determine what is true. I didn't ask whether science can determine what is scientifically true or what is logically true. It seems clear that what can be scientifically proven is not the limit of "what we can know to be true" and that what can be logically or mathematically determined is not the limit of "what we can know to be true." It seems you're both saying that we can only know what is true from science (you) or logic/mathematics (Running Deer) in those respective contexts. That's fine, I guess, but that was not the context of the original question. It's like asking where native Yugambeh-Bundjalung speakers live and having someone answer: "There are none! In Nunavut there are none!" So back to the first question...can we only know something to be true through science? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 20:45:01 GMT
Arrogance is irrelevant. If I said it was naive of you to assume that your definition is correct, it would be true, but also irrelevant. Can we please stick to the topic instead of ad hominem conjectures. Freon Okay, let's take it back to earlier in the conversation where the question was raised how we know what is true. All of a sudden you and Running Deer are restricting the conversation to science or logic/mathematics. But that wasn't the conversation. I specifically asked if only science can determine what is true. I didn't ask whether science can determine what is scientifically true or what is logically true. It seems clear that what can be scientifically proven is not the limit of "what we can know to be true" and that what can be logically or mathematically determined is not the limit of "what we can know to be true." It seems you're both saying that we can only know what is true from science (you) or logic/mathematics (Running Deer) in those respective contexts. That's fine, I guess, but that was not the context of the original question. It's like asking where native Yugambeh-Bundjalung speakers live and having someone answer: "There are none! In Nunavut there are none!" So back to the first question...can we only know something to be true through science? My response adequately covered both realms of truth, that which exists in the physical world, and that which is within the metaphysical one. So it sounds like your actual question is if we can know PHYSICAL truth, through non-scientific methodologies. Since the universe is infinite, and my knowledge is finite, then for me to say, empirically, that science is the only path to physical truth, would ACTUALLY be arrogant. I don't know, is the only answer I can empirically provide, but of the paths AVAILABLE to us right now, ONLY science is capable of doing so. No other system has been shown to be more accurate, or even be testable. But you are, as usual, not stating your own view, so answer the same question you just asked me. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 21:02:47 GMT
Okay, let's take it back to earlier in the conversation where the question was raised how we know what is true. All of a sudden you and Running Deer are restricting the conversation to science or logic/mathematics. But that wasn't the conversation. I specifically asked if only science can determine what is true. I didn't ask whether science can determine what is scientifically true or what is logically true. It seems clear that what can be scientifically proven is not the limit of "what we can know to be true" and that what can be logically or mathematically determined is not the limit of "what we can know to be true." It seems you're both saying that we can only know what is true from science (you) or logic/mathematics (Running Deer) in those respective contexts. That's fine, I guess, but that was not the context of the original question. It's like asking where native Yugambeh-Bundjalung speakers live and having someone answer: "There are none! In Nunavut there are none!" So back to the first question...can we only know something to be true through science? My response adequately covered both realms of truth, that which exists in the physical world, and that which is within the metaphysical one. So it sounds like your actual question is if we can know PHYSICAL truth, through non-scientific methodologies. Does it sound like that? Are you sure? If I haven't actually stated it (and I think I have), it should be clear that I believe science is not the only means by which we can be confident that something is true. Not to quibble (but to quibble), what does it mean that "I don't know, is the only answer [you] can empirically provide"? Are you saying that science is the only means of providing empirical truth? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 21:37:46 GMT
My response adequately covered both realms of truth, that which exists in the physical world, and that which is within the metaphysical one. So it sounds like your actual question is if we can know PHYSICAL truth, through non-scientific methodologies. Does it sound like that? Are you sure? If I haven't actually stated it (and I think I have), it should be clear that I believe science is not the only means by which we can be confident that something is true. Not to quibble (but to quibble), what does it mean that "I don't know, is the only answer [you] can empirically provide"? Are you saying that science is the only means of providing empirical truth? Well if I infer your stance, you attack me for doing so, and yet when I asked you your stance, you attack me for not properly inferring. The Mercy book is as challenging as the Freon one, apparently. I am saying that there may be another equal, or better, strategy for understanding our physical world besides science, but I have yet to be exposed to it. I am acknowledging that science itself may not be the best approach, that it may have to iterate to something new to increase its accuracy. But I think you already know my stance, as I already knew yours, so not sure why you insist we go through these motions over and over. I find your stance contradictory, because you actually use SCIENCE (though you don't realize it) to understand the world, but RELIGION to give you the answers. Whereas I would never use science to understand a metaphysical concept, nor use a metaphysical one to understand a physical one. Freon |
|
