Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy'

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #274,950

by imric

12/6/06 8:59:29 AM

Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy'

it's A philosophy...

Even in your definitions, Natural Philosophy (2) is more properly known as Physics...

I think Ashton is saying that there are many things that science can't explain. I think Peter is saying that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition. "It's bollocks."

In fact, what Peter said was that everything 'paranormal' has been 'found' to be either fraud or chance.

Now, I don't know about this instance of trying to fit 'paranormal' phenomena into a scientific framework, myself. But if he really meant "that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition "It's bollocks."" in general, he would HAVE to reject both 'dark energy' and string theory, and say that they are 'bollocks'.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,952

by pwhysall

12/6/06 9:16:52 AM

Re: Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy'

In fact, what Peter said was that everything 'paranormal' has been 'found' to be either fraud or chance.

It has.

Now, I don't know about this instance of trying to fit 'paranormal' phenomena into a scientific framework, myself. But if he really meant "that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition "It's bollocks."" in general, he would HAVE to reject both 'dark energy' and string theory, and say that they are 'bollocks'.

No, I wouldn't. I'd call them "hypotheses", because that's what they are.

Get the difference? Dark energy and string theory may or may not be right. The scientific method of hypotheses-observation-evidence-GOTO 10 will either support or demolish them.

But there's a fuckload more convincing maths for either of those two ideas than there is for the half-baked gibberish that's summarised by the phrase "quantum mind".

Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[link|http://darwinia.co.uk/|[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]]

slow sunday? how about a discussion of quantum metaphysics - (boxley) - (54) - Dec. 3, 2006, 03:36:15 PM EST

It's bollocks. -NT - (pwhysall) - (48) - Dec. 3, 2006, 05:11:14 PM EST

wassamatta u dont understand the math? -NT - (boxley) - (47) - Dec. 3, 2006, 07:47:12 PM EST

There's nothing to understand. - (pwhysall) - (46) - Dec. 4, 2006, 01:50:11 AM EST

ICLRPDx4 - (Steve Lowe) - Dec. 4, 2006, 02:41:58 AM EST

Like string theory and dark energy - (imric) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2006, 06:53:58 AM EST

Yes, exactly like those. - (pwhysall) - Dec. 4, 2006, 07:06:33 AM EST

perhaps you missed a few things - (boxley) - (41) - Dec. 4, 2006, 09:06:17 AM EST

Re: perhaps you missed a few things - (pwhysall) - (40) - Dec. 4, 2006, 09:11:18 AM EST

Careful.. - (Ashton) - (39) - Dec. 4, 2006, 11:19:19 PM EST

some people dont grok uncertainty as certainty - (boxley) - Dec. 5, 2006, 12:05:06 AM EST

Oh please. - (pwhysall) - (35) - Dec. 5, 2006, 02:44:33 AM EST

so physics is wrong? energy dissapates? its not a constant? - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 5, 2006, 08:07:02 AM EST

Cold fusion, eh? - (pwhysall) - Dec. 5, 2006, 08:19:33 AM EST

Spent a lot of time around Jesuits? - (Ashton) - (31) - Dec. 5, 2006, 06:33:09 PM EST

Re: Spent a lot of time around Jesuits? - (pwhysall) - (30) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:21:45 AM EST

It's a Republican thing - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2006, 06:00:40 AM EST

Re: It's a Republican thing - (ubernostrum) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 12:32:34 PM EST

Agreeable.. - (Ashton) - Dec. 6, 2006, 06:10:51 PM EST

Science IS Philosophy. - (imric) - (26) - Dec. 6, 2006, 07:19:26 AM EST

No it isn't. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2006, 07:47:11 AM EST

Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy' - (imric) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 08:59:29 AM EST

Re: Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy' - (pwhysall) - Dec. 6, 2006, 09:16:52 AM EST

You don't understand the scientific method... - (pwhysall) - (22) - Dec. 6, 2006, 09:14:01 AM EST

question then - (boxley) - (12) - Dec. 6, 2006, 09:42:16 AM EST

My stab at it. - (Another Scott) - (3) - Dec. 6, 2006, 10:05:22 AM EST

since energy transforms rather than dissapate - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2006, 10:18:46 AM EST

The field lines collapse... - (admin) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 10:47:30 AM EST

no mystery, if thats the explaination - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2006, 10:49:39 AM EST

Odd question. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 10:25:42 AM EST

Agreed - - (imric) - Dec. 6, 2006, 11:03:49 AM EST

Ah, geez. - (ubernostrum) - (5) - Dec. 6, 2006, 12:38:36 PM EST

1/4 of an ounce, everybody knows that -NT - (boxley) - (4) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:36:00 PM EST

That's what, 50 bucks? -NT - (imric) - (3) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:36:35 PM EST

Up here that'll run you at least 65$CDN - (jake123) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:38:31 PM EST

is that for the good BC stuff or the ONT ragweed? -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 05:43:20 PM EST

It's not ragweed anymore - (jake123) - Dec. 6, 2006, 06:23:33 PM EST

Therefore, your PHILOSOPHY - (imric) - (8) - Dec. 6, 2006, 11:02:28 AM EST

Please don't misrepresent what I said. - (pwhysall) - (5) - Dec. 6, 2006, 12:03:32 PM EST

Horse- - (imric) - (4) - Dec. 6, 2006, 12:59:47 PM EST

Whatever. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:16:04 PM EST

*chuckle* Justify Quantum Mind? - (imric) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:24:16 PM EST

ICLRPD (new thread) - (drewk) - Dec. 7, 2006, 12:00:05 AM EST

Dupe, ignore - (pwhysall) - Dec. 6, 2006, 01:17:36 PM EST

I'm reminded of Willard Van Orman Quine - (ubernostrum) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 12:41:01 PM EST

omigawd___ the tragedy of psoriasis^h^h_ ab != ba -NT - (Ashton) - Dec. 6, 2006, 06:33:01 PM EST

Bzzzzzt - (drewk) - Dec. 5, 2006, 09:34:42 PM EST

Ooh! Me next! - (ubernostrum) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2006, 02:07:54 AM EST

Re: Ooh! Me next! - (Ashton) - Dec. 6, 2006, 06:10:14 AM EST

Another article. - (Another Scott) - Dec. 5, 2006, 07:57:25 AM EST

It's a surd - (Ashton) - Dec. 4, 2006, 03:57:32 AM EST

See. - (ubernostrum) - (3) - Dec. 5, 2006, 01:04:43 AM EST

wassamtter you quit drinking ? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 5, 2006, 08:07:51 AM EST

Nah. - (ubernostrum) - (1) - Dec. 5, 2006, 03:24:03 PM EST

ICLRPD. (new thread) - (Another Scott) - Dec. 5, 2006, 03:35:06 PM EST

iwethey.org

404 - Document not found.
76 ms