But just because you don't have the cash flow to make it worthwhile to do the same thing the companies are doing, doesn't make what the companies are doing illegal.
Correct. It makes it unethical.
See Kant's Categorical Imperative on this. If you posit a behavioral norm that you can not simultaneously advocate equally applying to -everyone else-, it is not a rational stance, ethically.
Or, if you prefer a religious axiom, "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you", i.e. the Golden Rule. The fact "they" are incapable for practical reasons of reproducing your behavior, does not create an ethical exemption.
Okay, so you do "real world science" for which your sole backing and elaboration is you inform us you do "real world science". Yawn.
Again, I am thoroughly familiar with the various lines of demarcation of what "science" includes and does not include, and you are here calling upon Philosophy of Science as the sole source of your pseudo-presentation of your "real science" at the very same time as you deny its relevance.
It's really too bad though that you dismiss Kant. If you want to have your endeavors mean anything in a wider societal scope than the to-be-superseded-next-year mundane mechanical repetition of your brand of "real science" (really, let's be fair, you are defining yourself as more of a follow-the-recipe clerical staff than a scientist, and probably appropriately), Kant's rationale for an objective, reason-based framework for science and domains such as ethics would be a good bridge for that. As well as provide you with a method to justify (or just merely coherently state) your "real science" in a manner that isn't entirely circular.
Wherever you think this means that "the vocabulary used" invalidates the experiences quantified by the paper, you are wrong.
Everything is described through cultural linguistic constructs. That's irrelevant to the reality of any given experience, and if your assertion as to what the sentence implies were what it in fact implied, there would be no reason to continue with the presentation of the study. Since they did in fact continue, we can fairly conclude that this wasn't the assertion--as we can also infer from the absence of your conclusion actually being anywhere in the statement.
See, this is where I feel fundamentally required to respond to the statement not as an argument, not as a perception I consider incorrect, but as an outright deliberate lie. My basis for this is that you could not actually live as long as you have while generally believing what you assert to be true, is true, but rather you apply an entirely different set of criteria to religious concepts as you do every single day to every other subject, and you could not do otherwise.
I'm glad in this case I didn't have to revisit the different commonplace forms of that here, and you, surprisingly, didn't make the claim that because there is an alternate scenario that is also supported by the evidence, it then becomes the case the evidence no longer supports the original interpretation that it in fact supports. As always, for everything, every day, you then have evidence for -both- scenarios. If you find the prime suspect in a bank robbery with a bag of cash with the bank's logo and a gun on his coffee table, noting he has a roommate who could have done it does not make that suddenly not evidence for the prime suspect's culpability. It is simply not, in itself, -proof- (the standard goalpost-shift here to an infinite-regress of expectation, as well as tantamount to demanding forced conversion, proof provided, the requester's choices now irrelevant). Nor is this, because it is -a- line of support (of the particular peer-reviewed sort commonly demanded), therefore the -only- line of support. I could go on at length regarding other lines of support (i.e. improbability of future prediction happening "by chance", historical notations of secular historians, martyrdom of contemporaries, etc.), but this is a waste of time if I don't perceive basic willingness to consider information on the same terms as every other topic in the requester's existence, and as basic reason calls for. Some don't have that. Maybe that's because they're simply lying hypocrites. Maybe you have an alternate explanation.
There's a wealth of material there as to how the paper came about; no Philosophy of Science is needed. But keep whining about the philosophical process for coming up with a hypothesis, I'd prefer to spend my time on the science.
Okay, continue handwaving. Feel free to read "The Introduction" yourself, and see if this entire process, in any given case, represents entirely rigorously-definable and validatable processes. It won't, because none of them do. Again, if you can define "insight" rigorously, and/or the entirely of mental and historical processes that lead to the formation of the paper, feel free to do so.
But, this is largely beside the point by now, since you have abandoned the scoping of "scientific method" to processes involving hypotheses, contrary to, say:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." ...this.
And that's fine, I have no issue with expansion of the notion of "scientific method" to include aspects of pure inference from axioms, untestable "knowns", etc. But, since your response started specifically in response to my addressing a claim by reference to hypotheses, with some kind of (apparently, now, irrelevant) unbacked commentary stating that I broadly don't know what I'm talking about, your sequence of thoughts here seems a bit... irrationally off-topic.
Spend your time on "the science", enjoy. And every time you advance your work by thinking "well, this seems plausible", and don't know the precise attributes that make it so -at that original point in time of conceptualization- (and nobody does, or I would have had you coded out of a job by now) you'll be validating the relevance of Philosophy of Science.
No, my beliefs being real is what makes my beliefs real.
The link is peer-reviewed, authored-by-multiple-PhD's, published by probably the most prestigious medical journal in Europe, eyewitness accounts of direct correspondence between "religion's" claims and reality, as perceived precisely at the point when said "religion" predicts these. Note, -those in particular-, rather than random hallucinatory phenomena one might expect as a consequence of brain failure. You'll handwave this as coincidence, or have some twisted pseudo-logic as to how these aren't eyewitness reports in this particular context. It doesn't matter. Your opinion, as a soon-to-be-eliminated irrelevancy, by -your- worldview, also matters no more on this than anywhere else.
Dodge and goalpost-shift as you will, imposing your maximum potential relevance, according to -you-, of a random internet guy whose positions have no potential weight or consequence (that is, no importance whatsoever). It is unquestionably "grounding" (i.e. evidence, no matter how intellectually-dishonest your criteria for "evidence" becomes in the follow-on post you will make).
It may even have been me that linked the article previously, and if so, it was just as relevant then as now (feel free to directly lie again)--not sure, you've been a tedious goalless waste of Slashdot's time for quite a while now. Eh, could be.
And nothing would match the bloodbath preceding existence of any religion, organized or not, that would be the sole reason (according to you) that you now exist (and the other hominids don't), as a product of evolution.
No, I have done nothing of the sort as debunk myself.
I need no more of a subset of the Philosophy of Science than is pertinent and demonstrates the premise false. As is always the case.
There is nothing "nonsense" about metaphysics. It is simply positions and arguments as to what fundamentally exists, including the view of Naturalism that I presume you adhere to. This core branch of philosophy will take a bit more to determine as "nonsense" (as if a categorization per se could ever be "nonsense") than your obviously wholly-uninformed declaration, formed as it is by 2500 years of minds notably better than yours.
I'm not sure what the quote of me that I never said is supposed to add, but there is nothing "grade school" about my definition. My statements were, contrary to your simplistic handwaving (or lack of knowledge on the level you project), pointing out that hypothesis formation itself is not an easily-defined process. Where do the hypotheses come from? An offhand glossing over of this question is easy. To actually understand it in detail (and by extension to understand scientific method per se) is much harder. I'd suggest Robert Pirsig as a source for quality (ahem) elaboration on this, and since you seem to be reactionarily attacking anything that vaguely reminds you of religion, regardless of the damage to understanding of science you may do, I'll feed your bias and note he's well known for a few rather extreme quotes dismissing religion.
Your subjective definition of "best" is meaningless in terms of science.
I'm sorry you don't understand the issue here. The claims were the scope of science is unlimited and it is the only way of creating knowledge. These claims are false. You are merely adding illustrative examples of why they are false.
Again, content-free, and your supposed "inductive reasoning" is based on no knowledge of me as your sole justification, and therefore blatantly and wholly invalid. I suppose, your brand of science requires no evidence at all, for your proclamations.
There simply is no method that reduces the infinite range of proposable hypotheses to particular likely-relevant ones, that can be systematized.
We are in the domain of "inspiration" and "insight" and "domain knowledge inference" now, which is not formally exhaustively definable as if an algorithmic attribute of scientific method. Present any scientific paper you wish, as, well, the most simplistic beginnings to any evidence for your claims, and I'll have identified the premises that are not derived from any self-contained methodological process within 5 minutes. It's not difficult to do.
Let me refresh the thread with the original claim:
"The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge."
So, if you agree, do it, and state the knowledge resulting from it, answering the question. I'm particularly interested in your test for it. What you have described is not scientific method at all, yet, we have epistemological methods by which we conclude we have a valid view as to the answer, or at least knowledge -meaningful toward- the answer.
This is denied in whole and in part by the original claim. That's because, the claim is -false-, as a great deal of effort and counterpoint represented within the Logical Positivism movement has soundly demonstrated. At minimum, anyone posting such a claim should be familiar with those arguments. Particularly since, rather than a singular "trick question", the -majority- of human knowledge and the -majority- of domains of inquiry (i.e. politics, history, economics, etc.) are of this nature, and generally opaque to scientific method. Science is a subset of epistemology, not a replacement for it. Actually attempting to live as if everything should be resolved by scientific method, is a literal impossibility.
Feel free to elaborate, though. I was thinking of "random mutation", but in the domain of physics, the specific cause of a particular result of a wave function collapse is something I, along with the Nobel committee, would love to hear.
As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world, and which admits anything in its lack of causal specificity--including angels.
Not specifying is not specification. Equivocating by stating it's random, but not really random, is neither specification nor science nor rational.
One of these propositions is true, and therefore a fact:
1. Mozart was a better composer than Bach. 2. Bach was a better composer than Mozart. 3. Either Mozart or Bach was a better composer than a given randomly-selected High School band student.
None of these are falsifiable. There is no objective test for them, as musical taste is (insofar as we are aware) not scientifically resolvable.
To be clear, though, outside of that, my post was -meant- to agree with and summarize the broader content of your post. You apparently understand the difference between "not scientific" and "anti-scientific" better than most "pro-science" people, including scientists, do, or are willing to be honest about. And you also have a much more real-world awareness of the fact that many subject domains aren't addressable by scientific method, yet people still validly hold that there are ultimately ideas that are true within them, regardless of formal testability--politics and economics, to name a couple.
The recent Dawkins/Hitchens/Tyson/etc. movement to cast every human endeavor within the context of scientific method, and judge everything on that basis, is really a rehash of the philosophically-dead Logical Positivism movement. It doesn't work, and it can't work. And I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement.
"The Bible, however, is immutable, and the literalists have to resort to increasingly contorted explanations for how the Genesis account could be factually correct."
Good parroting of the popular Dawkins-driven line, but simply vastly historically incorrect as the sequence of events. Origen of Alexandria (one of the "Fathers of the Church", that is, one shaping core positions at the very earliest foundation of Christianity) was arguing for allegorical interpretation of Genesis in the second century A.D.
The notion that science comes along and "shows religion incorrect" is fanciful nonsense. It may show particular interpretations to be so, but compatible ones have existed from the start. In fact, the majority of those founding all branches of the sciences were theists.
Here's a few. You probably will recognize quite a few of them, particularly starting with with the "1701-" section.
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
Slashdot Mirror
So... light first, then water, then the sun.
I guess that's one for the YEC's.
Though, I'm still going with "allegory" as an OEC...
But just because you don't have the cash flow to make it worthwhile to do the same thing the companies are doing, doesn't make what the companies are doing illegal.
Correct. It makes it unethical.
See Kant's Categorical Imperative on this. If you posit a behavioral norm that you can not simultaneously advocate equally applying to -everyone else-, it is not a rational stance, ethically.
Or, if you prefer a religious axiom, "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you", i.e. the Golden Rule. The fact "they" are incapable for practical reasons of reproducing your behavior, does not create an ethical exemption.
Okay, so you do "real world science" for which your sole backing and elaboration is you inform us you do "real world science". Yawn.
Again, I am thoroughly familiar with the various lines of demarcation of what "science" includes and does not include, and you are here calling upon Philosophy of Science as the sole source of your pseudo-presentation of your "real science" at the very same time as you deny its relevance.
It's really too bad though that you dismiss Kant. If you want to have your endeavors mean anything in a wider societal scope than the to-be-superseded-next-year mundane mechanical repetition of your brand of "real science" (really, let's be fair, you are defining yourself as more of a follow-the-recipe clerical staff than a scientist, and probably appropriately), Kant's rationale for an objective, reason-based framework for science and domains such as ethics would be a good bridge for that. As well as provide you with a method to justify (or just merely coherently state) your "real science" in a manner that isn't entirely circular.
And... so?
Wherever you think this means that "the vocabulary used" invalidates the experiences quantified by the paper, you are wrong.
Everything is described through cultural linguistic constructs. That's irrelevant to the reality of any given experience, and if your assertion as to what the sentence implies were what it in fact implied, there would be no reason to continue with the presentation of the study. Since they did in fact continue, we can fairly conclude that this wasn't the assertion--as we can also infer from the absence of your conclusion actually being anywhere in the statement.
See, this is where I feel fundamentally required to respond to the statement not as an argument, not as a perception I consider incorrect, but as an outright deliberate lie. My basis for this is that you could not actually live as long as you have while generally believing what you assert to be true, is true, but rather you apply an entirely different set of criteria to religious concepts as you do every single day to every other subject, and you could not do otherwise.
I'm glad in this case I didn't have to revisit the different commonplace forms of that here, and you, surprisingly, didn't make the claim that because there is an alternate scenario that is also supported by the evidence, it then becomes the case the evidence no longer supports the original interpretation that it in fact supports. As always, for everything, every day, you then have evidence for -both- scenarios. If you find the prime suspect in a bank robbery with a bag of cash with the bank's logo and a gun on his coffee table, noting he has a roommate who could have done it does not make that suddenly not evidence for the prime suspect's culpability. It is simply not, in itself, -proof- (the standard goalpost-shift here to an infinite-regress of expectation, as well as tantamount to demanding forced conversion, proof provided, the requester's choices now irrelevant). Nor is this, because it is -a- line of support (of the particular peer-reviewed sort commonly demanded), therefore the -only- line of support. I could go on at length regarding other lines of support (i.e. improbability of future prediction happening "by chance", historical notations of secular historians, martyrdom of contemporaries, etc.), but this is a waste of time if I don't perceive basic willingness to consider information on the same terms as every other topic in the requester's existence, and as basic reason calls for. Some don't have that. Maybe that's because they're simply lying hypocrites. Maybe you have an alternate explanation.
There's a wealth of material there as to how the paper came about; no Philosophy of Science is needed. But keep whining about the philosophical process for coming up with a hypothesis, I'd prefer to spend my time on the science.
...this.
Okay, continue handwaving. Feel free to read "The Introduction" yourself, and see if this entire process, in any given case, represents entirely rigorously-definable and validatable processes. It won't, because none of them do. Again, if you can define "insight" rigorously, and/or the entirely of mental and historical processes that lead to the formation of the paper, feel free to do so.
But, this is largely beside the point by now, since you have abandoned the scoping of "scientific method" to processes involving hypotheses, contrary to, say:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
And that's fine, I have no issue with expansion of the notion of "scientific method" to include aspects of pure inference from axioms, untestable "knowns", etc. But, since your response started specifically in response to my addressing a claim by reference to hypotheses, with some kind of (apparently, now, irrelevant) unbacked commentary stating that I broadly don't know what I'm talking about, your sequence of thoughts here seems a bit... irrationally off-topic.
Spend your time on "the science", enjoy. And every time you advance your work by thinking "well, this seems plausible", and don't know the precise attributes that make it so -at that original point in time of conceptualization- (and nobody does, or I would have had you coded out of a job by now) you'll be validating the relevance of Philosophy of Science.
No, my beliefs being real is what makes my beliefs real.
The link is peer-reviewed, authored-by-multiple-PhD's, published by probably the most prestigious medical journal in Europe, eyewitness accounts of direct correspondence between "religion's" claims and reality, as perceived precisely at the point when said "religion" predicts these. Note, -those in particular-, rather than random hallucinatory phenomena one might expect as a consequence of brain failure. You'll handwave this as coincidence, or have some twisted pseudo-logic as to how these aren't eyewitness reports in this particular context. It doesn't matter. Your opinion, as a soon-to-be-eliminated irrelevancy, by -your- worldview, also matters no more on this than anywhere else.
Dodge and goalpost-shift as you will, imposing your maximum potential relevance, according to -you-, of a random internet guy whose positions have no potential weight or consequence (that is, no importance whatsoever). It is unquestionably "grounding" (i.e. evidence, no matter how intellectually-dishonest your criteria for "evidence" becomes in the follow-on post you will make).
It may even have been me that linked the article previously, and if so, it was just as relevant then as now (feel free to directly lie again)--not sure, you've been a tedious goalless waste of Slashdot's time for quite a while now. Eh, could be.
And nothing would match the bloodbath preceding existence of any religion, organized or not, that would be the sole reason (according to you) that you now exist (and the other hominids don't), as a product of evolution.
Why suddenly drop context?
So, in summary, you're ignorant of history, religion, -and- ghost stories.
But here is some peer-reviewed grounding for you.
Incidentally, while we're discussing "science qualifications", I am co-author of two patents in the domain of image analysis. Your turn, AC.
No, I have done nothing of the sort as debunk myself.
I need no more of a subset of the Philosophy of Science than is pertinent and demonstrates the premise false. As is always the case.
There is nothing "nonsense" about metaphysics. It is simply positions and arguments as to what fundamentally exists, including the view of Naturalism that I presume you adhere to. This core branch of philosophy will take a bit more to determine as "nonsense" (as if a categorization per se could ever be "nonsense") than your obviously wholly-uninformed declaration, formed as it is by 2500 years of minds notably better than yours.
I'm not sure what the quote of me that I never said is supposed to add, but there is nothing "grade school" about my definition. My statements were, contrary to your simplistic handwaving (or lack of knowledge on the level you project), pointing out that hypothesis formation itself is not an easily-defined process. Where do the hypotheses come from? An offhand glossing over of this question is easy. To actually understand it in detail (and by extension to understand scientific method per se) is much harder. I'd suggest Robert Pirsig as a source for quality (ahem) elaboration on this, and since you seem to be reactionarily attacking anything that vaguely reminds you of religion, regardless of the damage to understanding of science you may do, I'll feed your bias and note he's well known for a few rather extreme quotes dismissing religion.
Your subjective definition of "best" is meaningless in terms of science.
I'm sorry you don't understand the issue here. The claims were the scope of science is unlimited and it is the only way of creating knowledge. These claims are false. You are merely adding illustrative examples of why they are false.
First define "best".
Your job, not mine. Or, we have a domain not resolvable by science, as was the original claim.
Again, content-free, and your supposed "inductive reasoning" is based on no knowledge of me as your sole justification, and therefore blatantly and wholly invalid. I suppose, your brand of science requires no evidence at all, for your proclamations.
There simply is no method that reduces the infinite range of proposable hypotheses to particular likely-relevant ones, that can be systematized.
We are in the domain of "inspiration" and "insight" and "domain knowledge inference" now, which is not formally exhaustively definable as if an algorithmic attribute of scientific method. Present any scientific paper you wish, as, well, the most simplistic beginnings to any evidence for your claims, and I'll have identified the premises that are not derived from any self-contained methodological process within 5 minutes. It's not difficult to do.
Let me refresh the thread with the original claim:
"The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge."
So, if you agree, do it, and state the knowledge resulting from it, answering the question. I'm particularly interested in your test for it. What you have described is not scientific method at all, yet, we have epistemological methods by which we conclude we have a valid view as to the answer, or at least knowledge -meaningful toward- the answer.
This is denied in whole and in part by the original claim. That's because, the claim is -false-, as a great deal of effort and counterpoint represented within the Logical Positivism movement has soundly demonstrated. At minimum, anyone posting such a claim should be familiar with those arguments. Particularly since, rather than a singular "trick question", the -majority- of human knowledge and the -majority- of domains of inquiry (i.e. politics, history, economics, etc.) are of this nature, and generally opaque to scientific method. Science is a subset of epistemology, not a replacement for it. Actually attempting to live as if everything should be resolved by scientific method, is a literal impossibility.
I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Your statement tells me you have no argument, and therefore are going with a transparent Ad Hominem.
Oh. Well, no, I'm not.
Feel free to elaborate, though. I was thinking of "random mutation", but in the domain of physics, the specific cause of a particular result of a wave function collapse is something I, along with the Nobel committee, would love to hear.
Fair enough. Give me the systematic steps for the original formation of the hypotheses within an application of scientific method.
If you can't give me specific universal steps, and you can't, you should now have a glimpse of the relevance of Philosophy of Science.
As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world, and which admits anything in its lack of causal specificity--including angels.
Not specifying is not specification. Equivocating by stating it's random, but not really random, is neither specification nor science nor rational.
"The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge."
The zombie of Logical Positivism, long dead.
Tell me, then, which is the best rock band in history, or is no knowledge of the subject possible?
"I would hold that all three of your choices are opinion..."
So, I think the question is, if we take all possible opinions on an issue, is at least one of them fact?
I would say yes.
"You can't have a fact unless it's falsifiable."
On this particular point, I disagree...
One of these propositions is true, and therefore a fact:
1. Mozart was a better composer than Bach.
2. Bach was a better composer than Mozart.
3. Either Mozart or Bach was a better composer than a given randomly-selected High School band student.
None of these are falsifiable. There is no objective test for them, as musical taste is (insofar as we are aware) not scientifically resolvable.
To be clear, though, outside of that, my post was -meant- to agree with and summarize the broader content of your post. You apparently understand the difference between "not scientific" and "anti-scientific" better than most "pro-science" people, including scientists, do, or are willing to be honest about. And you also have a much more real-world awareness of the fact that many subject domains aren't addressable by scientific method, yet people still validly hold that there are ultimately ideas that are true within them, regardless of formal testability--politics and economics, to name a couple.
The recent Dawkins/Hitchens/Tyson/etc. movement to cast every human endeavor within the context of scientific method, and judge everything on that basis, is really a rehash of the philosophically-dead Logical Positivism movement. It doesn't work, and it can't work. And I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement.
In short:
Unfalsifiable does not mean false.
A standard claim by people who should (and usually do) know better.
"The Bible, however, is immutable, and the literalists have to resort to increasingly contorted explanations for how the Genesis account could be factually correct."
Good parroting of the popular Dawkins-driven line, but simply vastly historically incorrect as the sequence of events. Origen of Alexandria (one of the "Fathers of the Church", that is, one shaping core positions at the very earliest foundation of Christianity) was arguing for allegorical interpretation of Genesis in the second century A.D.
The notion that science comes along and "shows religion incorrect" is fanciful nonsense. It may show particular interpretations to be so, but compatible ones have existed from the start. In fact, the majority of those founding all branches of the sciences were theists.
Here's a few. You probably will recognize quite a few of them, particularly starting with with the "1701-" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Addendum:
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
--Thomas