what is something, what is nothing

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
My point is there are even scientists that say philosophy is not needed anymore..... using philosophical arguments in the process but too blind to see what they are doing...... hawking was one such idiot I think.

They also in general casually fall back on philosophy while maintaining they are only using science.
Has it occurred to you that scientists might be trying to eliminate philosophy and do proper emperical demonstrable scienctific study and eliminate bias?

hawking was one such idiot I think.
You're a funny guy.

At this point I only call the empirically proven fields science because "science" can be a very nebulous term. Anything methodical can be called science.
Wrong. Have you heard of the scientific method?
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 17][123][n 18] it is expected to be:

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
  • Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Also @saturnz if you want the definition of pure science, you'll find it above.

I'm sure they can find a movie where a fictional character will confirm their position in a mic drop sort of way, because science.
..Whooosh

Citation logic.... the same thing that legitimizes junk sciences like gender studies. Get enough people to agree with each other in a circle jerk publication and POOF..... it's science.
See above about the scientific method.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,968
Only dumb and/or ignorant scientists try to do science after claiming to have abandoned metaphysics and philosophy.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,968
So what you're actually saying thus is, "something" exploded. You'd be correct. Something did happen, but it wasn't an "explosion" any more than it was an expansion of time and space.
Reifying time is a useful delusion.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,600
I wasn't looking for a definition of pure science, you already provided one which I acknowledged...
Okay. I hope you're not referring to the very first definition and rather the one after that.
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,003
Has it occurred to you that scientists might be trying to eliminate philosophy and do proper emperical demonstrable scienctific study and eliminate bias?
Nope, they believe themselves to be above philosophy.... but then they completely miss that many of their statements they think are scientific facts are actually philosophical statements. They are philosophically blind, only explanation.

You're a funny guy.
Nope I'm dead serious, sometimes the smartest people make the stupidest mistakes because they believe themselves above correction.

Wrong. Have you heard of the scientific method?
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 17][123][n 18] it is expected to be:

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
  • Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Also @saturnz if you want the definition of pure science, you'll find it above.

See above about the scientific method.
That funny enough is great in theory but rarely gets purely utilized in practice. All scientists being human they also bring their human biases and philosophies into their work, wither consciously or subconsciously. Thinking that all science actually gets done that way start to finish is a mistake.

Also even that is not fool-proof especially if all variables are either not observable or sometimes even ignored as irrelevant. And it has become clear that dogma's have sprung up..... real factual science has NO dogma's.

The humanities did not become corrupt in a vacuum, the academy had already been corrupted on a fundamental level but it was comfortable for everyone so the corruption was ignored. The current madness is merely the next stage of the rot.

And then there was "communist science" with it's ludicrous dogma's which was a object lesson in what not to do..... problem is no one learnt the right lesson, in their hubris they thought they would get it right with their little dogma's.

And before that there was the lunacy that ruled in the west where people were literally shouted down or even assaulted if they attempted to overturn a previous dogma.... now you just get ridiculed and defunded/ deplatformed. More civilized but still the same kind of mindset, do NOT rock our comfortable little boat.

As the song goes "10,000 years, nothing was learnt"
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,003
strawman logic, mention things which have absolutely nothing to do with the point to try and render the point useless
I fail to see the strawman, this is how much of dogmatic science has been done the last few decades. Everyone pointing to other people in a ever enlarging web of citations with nary a proper full picture from scratch to be seen, ultra-compartmentalization where no one seems to notice what utter BS they are propping up.

As the humanites hoax proved.... many to most of the active reviewers are either morons, faking reviews for money or have an agenda they are pushing. Before it was just the "acceptable heretics" like people that don't believe in global warming or evolution being silently ostracised, now everybody is suddenly upset because liberals are being publicly ostracized for new heresies. There will always be a new heresy so attack people for I don't see how ANY of this is surprising.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,286
I fail to see the strawman, this is how much of dogmatic science has been done the last few decades. Everyone pointing to other people in a ever enlarging web of citations with nary a proper full picture from scratch to be seen, ultra-compartmentalization where no one seems to notice what utter BS they are propping up.

As the humanites hoax proved.... many to most of the active reviewers are either morons, faking reviews for money or have an agenda they are pushing. Before it was just the "acceptable heretics" like people that don't believe in global warming or evolution being silently ostracised, now everybody is suddenly upset because liberals are being publicly ostracized for new heresies. There will always be a new heresy so attack people for I don't see how ANY of this is surprising.
so you agree then that darkness is nothing because Daruk said so

this is now an established fact

also did you perhaps explain what empirically proven means?
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,003
so you agree then that darkness is nothing because Daruk said so

this is now an established fact

also did you perhaps explain what empirically proven means?
Somehow I doubt your objective here is serious conversation..... Ima ignore you now..... happy new year
 
Top