Scientific Method Mega Thread

[Urwumpe]

I think you meant "science is objective" here...

:lol::lol::lol:

I get old.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

To augment jedidia a bit: The images and video streams are just limited evidence, and most of all evidence of their own existence. They just represent a small part of the whole spectrum of observations related to the objects shown - or not shown.

 

[JEL]

@jedidia; I'm in almost complete disagreement with you, and I really think it's futile to continue debating this. I believe we've both made our respective points on this subject, and they just don't appear to meet up.
I will not commit the crime of forceful intervention against you to save you from your 'false' world-view, since I believe strongly in individual freedom and the right to live in peace with one's own beliefs, erroneous or not, for atleast as long as you give the same freedom and right to me

We both like Orbiter though, and that's good enough for me

The images and video streams are just limited evidence, and most of all evidence of their own existence.

The same can be said about your mind and thoughts, correct?
They only show that you have a mind of thoughts, correct?
"Cogito ergo sum", correct?

They just represent a small part of the whole spectrum of observations related to the objects shown - or not shown.

What whole spectrum?

These images are all you've been given. They might just BE the whole known spectrum of observations of this.
Obviously the websites that posted the images have further info, but before having seen that info you can't make any use of it, or even know of its existence. You can ONLY work with what you have available, all else is hear-say.

The point of the pictures was to establish the notion that looks can be deceiving. That the perceived world, perceived through your human senses (since that's all a human have to perceive the world with), IS just another such look.

 

[jedidia]

That the perceived world, perceived through your human senses (since that's all a human have to perceive the world with), IS just another such look.

I think I already replied on that one. Important is not what it looks like, important for reality is only what data I can get from it. Because everyone can get the same data from it, no matter what else it might be in some transcendant plane of existance.

since I believe strongly in individual freedom and the right to live in peace with one's own beliefs, erroneous or not

Even if an engineer with eroneus beliefs builds the elevator that crashes you to death?
I'm all in for individual freedom, but lifting it above reality doesn't make any sense. Simply because reality will come back and kill you if you do, no one else has to do anything about it. People that think that the power of their minds transcends reality get Darwin Awards, that's what it comes down to in the end. A Man cannot transform reality by force of will, period.

 

[JEL]

Important is not what it looks like, important for reality is only what data I can get from it. Because everyone can get the same data from it, no matter what else it might be in some transcendant plane of existance.

Please take another look at this page: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum[/ame]

It seems to me, with all due respect, that you have still not understood what that actually means.

 

[Quintuss]

What Jedidia does not understand is that, that You went wayy offtopic from this thread theme. You both talking about diffrent things. Obviously.

PS. It was long time since my last english lesson, so please forgive me my grammar and typos.

 

[Wishbone]

Philosophy is the underpinning of all science, so there's hardly any off-topic element in it.

 

[jedidia]

It seems to me, with all due respect, that you have still not understood what that actually means.

I know what it means alright. The problem is that pure subjectivism goes way beyond that and says "I think, therefore (or even thereby) everything is" .

Let's try this the other way around for once, as obviously we're both having trouble understanding what the other is trying to convey:

Why, in your oppinion, do practically all measurements of earths gravity provide the same result?

 

[Urwumpe]

"Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore I exist) is an egoist argumentation - if somebody writes a scientific paper that you read, it could still be just your imagination (Plato described it much better with his ideas), but still this paper will likely explain your perceived reality.

Maybe we are all just your imaginary friends. Who knows? In this case, your application of "cogito ergo sum" is actually completely powerless. Here we are, your imaginary friends, disagreeing with you. Get used to us.

 

[N_Molson]

Ah, that's all the problem of the cartesianism...

 

[JEL]

Why, in your oppinion, do practically all measurements of earths gravity provide the same result?

If the world is what you think, then science is all good and gravity is all fine.

But if the the world is NOT what you think (and my claim with [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum[/ame] is only that that possibility DO exist), then using science as the foundation of generalized 'berufs-verbot' bans on society-level of certain people is NOT ok.

A school can ofcourse select which teachers it wants to employ. But only within it's own institutional boundaries.
Science-schools can hire/fire anybody who teaches the 'right/wrong' things.
Alternative-schools can hire/fire anybody who teaches the 'right/wrong' things.
That's free competition between belief-systems. That gives you and me a free choice, rather than a dictate coming from above.

The logic of "Cogito ergo sum" denies ALL 'voices-from-above', whether it be god's or einstein's, to dictate how we shall live. That, in my opinion, is good.

Who knows?

That rock-band, the who, sure knows a lot :lol:

Here we are, your imaginary friends, disagreeing with you. Get used to us.

Hahaha You don't disagree with me Urwumpe, you want personal freedom, and no un-wanted interference from God, just as much as I do
If I am YOUR imaginary friend, then I might appear (to you) to know you intimately

 

[Urwumpe]

If I am YOUR imaginary friend, then I should know you intimately

Maybe you are so busy with inventing imaginary friends, that you lack time for the details. And the Who knows, if we are all maybe not part of a conscious process in your brain.

 

[Hielor]

The logic of "Cogito ergo sum" denies ALL 'voices-from-above', whether it be god's or einstein's, to dictate how we shall live. That, in my opinion, is good.

Please decide to live without gravity, then.

 

[JEL]

Maybe you are so busy with inventing imaginary friends, that you lack time for the details.

If I am your imaginary friend you have only yourself to blame if I lack time for the details

And the Who knows, if we are all maybe not part of a conscious process in your brain.

Whether or not you are, you are at the very least concepts in my mind

Please decide to live without gravity, then.

I don't understand your point.

 

[Hielor]

I don't understand your point.

If reality only exists in your head because you want it to be the way it is, please decide that gravity no longer exists for you and start flying around.

 

[jedidia]

But if the the world is NOT what you think (and my claim with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
is only that that possibility DO exist), then using science as the foundation of generalized 'berufs-verbot' bans on society-level of certain people is NOT ok.

Right... there is the possibility that the world is not what we think. I totally agree with that, although I don't neccessarily believe it is true. HOWEVER: Can we not, without discounting this possibility, assume that if the world is not what it seems, it does pretend to be so really darn well. So well that we have to arrange ourselves with it if we want to get anything done in it.
It really comes down to what I said over and over again: Elevator constructed with g = 9.81 m/s^2 in mind = pretty save machine, unless not properly maintained. Elevator constructed with g = 8 m/s^2 in mind = instant death if loaded with the amount of people it was designed to lift. Now, wheather death is what it seems, and the people dying are what they seem is of course an utterly different question, but is it not reasonable to assume that they are just as real as I am and therefore stick with reality where neccesary to ensure their safety? Is it not proper to ristrict free will to reasonable bounderies to insure the well-being of all? Now, I know that with these words I could just as well call for an absolute dicatorship. Reasonable is indeed a very relative term without anything much objective to it. But still... we HAVE to draw a line somewhere. No matter where it is, a line has to be there, or the world will descend in chaos. That sometimes that line is too close doesn't justify erasing it.

Otherwise, I will excercise my free will and blow up some local stores here, I want to see some action you know, and I find it rather disturbing that my free will is limited in such a way that I'm simply not allowed to...

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

 

[JEL]

If reality only exists in your head because you want it to be the way it is, please decide that gravity no longer exists for you and start flying around.

I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to.
I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations.

Can we not, without discounting this possibility, assume that if the world is not what it seems, it does pretend to be so really darn well. So well that we have to arrange ourselves with it if we want to get anything done in it.

That is exactly what I am requesting; the liberty and right to live in accordance with one's own perceived reality.
You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are)

Elevator

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? ). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please.

Otherwise, I will excercise my free will and blow up some local stores here, I want to see some action you know, and I find it rather disturbing that my free will is limited in such a way that I'm simply not allowed to...

If you want to blow stuff up... join the army. They blow a lot of stuff up in Afghanistan and Libya already. Good luck with that

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

 

[Hielor]

I don't think I said existence exists because I want it to.
I think I only said it's impossible to know the truth about existence with absolute certainty, therefore leaving room for alternative interpretations.

Then please alternatively interpret gravity out of the equation and start flying.

You have YOUR ideas of what is real, other people may have other ideas. Your ideas are not superior to theirs (unless you think you are better than they are)

Or unless their ideas don't actually work--like, for example, believing there's no such thing as gravity.

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?
I'm pretty sure that anyone who believes in elevators also believe in building them so they don't crash (they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? ). If you believe in people, then have a little faith in them, please.

And in order to build an elevator that works, they have to acknowledge that acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

You're right, it doesn't matter that anyone who measures the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2. Someone is free to go and believe that it's 0, and fly around instead of being confined to the ground. Wait, what?

I have to say, you are very good at dodging questions and giving responses that don't answer the question.

 

[jedidia]

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?

Thanks God not. I didn't even say that anyone would want to. I merely said that if someone does not acknowledge that 1g = 9.81 m/s^2, he WILL. Now, I guess I have to fire a simple, direct question at you that you can't dodge. Please answer with yes or no: Do you believe that an elevator built under the assumption that g = 8 m/s^2 will lift the weight it was designed to lift? yes or no!

That's because the volume of observations are irrelevant as long as they remain subjective.

Maybe we're talking about the wrong thing here. We're talking about subjectivity all the time, let's talk a bit about objectivity for a change. Please tell me how you define objectivity, because I think we don't perceive the term in the same way.

 

[tblaxland]

Do you know any people, except maybe for terrorists, who want to build crashing elevators?

Sure, but what about the bloke that wants to build an elevator who has been taught that gravity is something other 9.8 m s^-2? With the best intentions in the world, it won't work for him. And it may kill someone because...

(they'll probably test them, over-loaded with dead-weight, before putting people in them, don't you think? )

Actually not. We've gotten so good at building elevators that don't crash that such tests are no longer required for the registration of lift machines (at least here). They call it "self-certification". Confidence is high that engineers won't have been taught alternative gravities because we make sure that school teachers won't teach such things.

 

[Wishbone]

Self-certification and self-regulation are very dangerous; am afraid we're back in the era of exploding steam boilers... (In Russia, elevators are still considered regulated equipment with AFAIK periodic re-certification despite the drive to self-regulate everything). As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea