chassis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Wow wait, who said science hasn't proved anything? They must be sipping on some of the poppy tea shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Wow wait, who said science hasn't proved anything? They must be sipping on some of the poppy tea shit If they are pulling a Karl Popper (who is a respectable theorist in his own right), its technically true, but ultimately meaningless. If we cannot use the concept of "proof" in any meaningful sense as a human species, then there is no purpose in communication whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Wow wait, who said science hasn't proved anything? They must be sipping on some of the poppy tea shit i think they're saying that semantically science doesn't prove things it just "proves" them to within a very small tolerance of accuracy or whatever, you know? beaten more eloquently. yeah it's a meaningless distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Wow wait, who said science hasn't proved anything? They must be sipping on some of the poppy tea shit If they are pulling a Karl Popper (who is a respectable theorist in his own right), its technically true, but ultimately meaningless. If we cannot use the concept of "proof" in any meaningful sense as a human species, then there is no purpose in communication whatsoever. isn't it like, you can't prove anything, just establish a high probability that it applies to most cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 absolutely. What we call proof is the closest verifiable clusters of evidence, from which our hypothesis/conclusions are easily replicated under circumstances. For example, if I said that the earth being round is a fact, would you believe me? Almost anyone would agree with this statement, even though it is not 100% accurate (the earth is a pseudo-ellipsoid whatever). Once you get into the microdistinctions is where the validity of "proof" can be challenged, but this in no way voids the premise upon which these discoveries began. So the opposite of these example would be if I said chlamydia exists. We would then have to say it either does or does not exist, or use the third way (creationists pull the bullshit Karl Popper abuse) by semantically changing the nature of the question. I guess a shorter way of saying it is that there are inclement/increments of proof (truth), and through further study of the minutiae revealed through the previous inclements do we arrive at more truthful or "proved" statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Wow wait, who said science hasn't proved anything? They must be sipping on some of the poppy tea shit If they are pulling a Karl Popper (who is a respectable theorist in his own right), its technically true, but ultimately meaningless. If we cannot use the concept of "proof" in any meaningful sense as a human species, then there is no purpose in communication whatsoever. Any cunts that ever use that cant stand in their own statements. Like that bullshit about to make apple pie from scratch you have to create the universe first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 and then you can just go up another level and challenge reality on a philosophical level NO ONE WINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I win, because I walk off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 exactly. its fun to philosophize, but at some point we have to agree upon what is intelligible to us via communication. though I suppose Wittgenstein would even say that is untrue and harmful (WTF HEAD ASPLODE) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chassis Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I find most of my debates eventually come down to the fact the neither of could possible know who is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 What we call proof is the closest verifiable clusters of evidence, from which our hypothesis/conclusions are easily replicated under circumstances. I'm sorry but your definition of proof is completely incorrect, even though you seem to have a good understanding of how science works. I can't even parse this sentence, it makes zero sense science deals with finite observations i.e. streams of data from which we may draw tentative conclusions. If the sun rises every morning in our life we have good reason to believe it will rise tomorrow. But we are still infinitely far from proving that the sun always rises. mathematics deals with deductions from assumptions and deals with necessary truths. mathematics is the only discipline of human thought which uses proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 What we call proof is the closest verifiable clusters of evidence, from which our hypothesis/conclusions are easily replicated under circumstances. I'm sorry but your definition of proof is completely incorrect, even though you seem to have a good understanding of how science works. I can't even parse this sentence, it makes zero sense fine. sufficient evidence supporting a truth or proposition. in science these proofs can be replicated or used under repeated circumstances to achieve the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 What we call proof is the closest verifiable clusters of evidence, from which our hypothesis/conclusions are easily replicated under circumstances. I'm sorry but your definition of proof is completely incorrect, even though you seem to have a good understanding of how science works. I can't even parse this sentence, it makes zero sense fine. sufficient evidence supporting a truth or proposition. in science these proofs can be replicated or used under repeated circumstances to achieve the same results. you are free to redefine proof however you want but I guess my role here is to inform you that I have never seen this used like this. What you are describing is basically....a body of evidence? In ancient times there was a colossal body of evidence to support that the earth was flat. The flatness of the earth could then be used to make incredibly accurate maps of local regions, reason about distances, and so forth. By your definition this is a proof of the flatness of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest underscore Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 sorry to be off topic guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 nevermind, this thread has been derailed far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Mathematical proofs are almost always informal. Logic is a branch of mathematics. If you can show me some awesome "proofs" stemming from epistemology and rhetoric, "philosophy", please do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Mathematical proofs are almost always informal. Logic is a branch of mathematics. If you can show me some awesome "proofs" stemming from epistemology and rhetoric, "philosophy", please do if you want to continue, feel free to PM me. no need to derail this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma333 Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Mmm tasty! Hey y'all, I just finished a two week hash binge.... Its probably the closest I've been to being addicted to heroin. Know what I'm sayin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 nvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 That is so well w LOL, it was on the first page of this thread along with me asking about opiates...well i guess I figured out where I stand on it now. http://www.tucsonwee...ent?oid=1079900 worth reposting, really creepy. that is so well written, and I mean brilliantly so, that I suspect it's all made up. People who've been through hell just don't write that way, I think... wasnt most of the Beat Generation a group of heroin/opiate addicts? the writing style is completely different though. There is no reptilian vibe at all, he comes across like an overzealous creative writing major, which he probably is. Also note that he details no other human interactions at all, goes from saying he was "helping his wife with something" to "I lost my wife due to my drug addiction" in a blink with no other comment about their crumbling relationship. I know you're going to say "it's probably too painful and he's clearly still in the grips of major denial" but I just get a different vibe, a vibe of phony. Not one of those things you can pin down easily. funny, i was reminded of burroughs reading it. and also, i was thinking that someone who's never been an addict wouldn't be able to come up with such graphic imagery for addiction and withdrawal. interesting. anyway, i enjoyed the read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 hey Spore, how are you doing? ps.in my infinite wisdom i decided to get some very high quality brown when i was in withdrawal-hell from alcy/ghb/benzos... it was Quite Good of course, but i still felt like shite physically and wondered wtf i was doing, so i threw the rest of the bag in the bin. hadn't used opiates in ages (some buprenorphine, morphine, many moons ago) and i again had glimpse of how unsustainably destructively lush they are. :sup: good times :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 interesting. anyway, i enjoyed the read. ya, good read (fictional or not). used to throw some pods with my coffee beans into the grinder sometimes but never overdid it--if you're going to do opiates then at least do proper ones was my rationale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.