100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bullies and logic | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Voilazer, First of all, scientific realism is doctrine and philosophy, subject to opions. I will not allow you to discredit science, and mix it up with this "realism" you speak of.
Science does not make facts. Science can be philisophical sure, if a guy is willing to take it that far, but science by itself is not philosophy. Science is nothing more gatehering infomation, deducing hypothosis and testing those hypothosis. (see scientific method) A theory is a PROVEN explination of a fact. It explanes facts, it doesnt make them. It observes, it doesnt create. For a theory to be a theory, it has to undergo rigourous testing. That being said, your scientific realism which is subject to opinion, is not valid in the argument. what is valid, is that Physics, (good ole objective non opinionated physics) proves that reality exist, and proves that other realityies exists. Science as a whole has proven that the world was ones human free, the world existed before man did. So did the universe. These are established facts and theories that are inarguable. You can argue with conclusions drawn from those theories, IE I dont think the big bang disproves God, but you cant argue with the theories themselves unless you have prove that has gone under intense scrutiny and rigourous testing, in which case you have a new theory. you may not think my arguement inteligent because it doesnt fit with your ideas, but I think (and so does science) thats its pretty basic, and straight forward. But before we go on, would you mind defineingreality and existence? I think if we both get on the same page we can avoid any contexct issues and mabey get somewhere. So define please... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Fri 01/15/10 12:09 PM
|
|
Voilazer, physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well. That being said... If I die, im not sure if the world will continue to exist...ill be dead. On the other hand, science have proven that there are othere realities and demensions in existence and that the universe would continue to exist without us. (see the last 100 years of science, specificaly physics, quantum theory and Bells therom) Its a paradox ( = Ultimatly, I lean towards Daniels side. Does something have to be observed to exist? If we use the scientific definition (which seems fitting) no, it does not have to be observed, recognized or agknowledged to exist. It would appear to me, that Daniel, and now you, are confusing or rather collapsing the very distinct concepts of 'REALITY', the larger concept, and 'SCIENTIFIC REALISM', its subordinated concept. I also notice that you 'jasonpfaff' take huge liberty of interpretation when granting science the responsibility of establishing what 'reality' is or is not. You claimed earlier : '... physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well...' Existence and reality are very much distinct, so are reality and scientific realism. If I may propose a more appropriate perspective for the point of view you were trying to make above, I would first suggest that you may specify to you are talking about the scientific perspective of reality, and more specifically that you are referring to scientific realism. Only then could we meet your intention of installing a context of intelligent dialogue, based on mutual respect and open mindedness, leading to constructive and mind broadening exchanges. Allow me to expand on the context you wish to establish with respect to this specific exchange. It could be said, generally speaking, that this scientific perspective of reality focuses on determining 'observable existence' on the one hand (micro or applied science), and some 'non-observable existence' on the other hand (the eventual broader 'ideal state' science in general seeks to achieve). Furthermore, science or scientific realism, doesn't 'EXIST' in a vacuum. IT doesn't pretend or claim to define what reality is!!! It very humbly and modestly seeks to contribute 'ELEMENTS' of reality to the already 'existing' pool, while respecting the already existing 'CONTEXT' for reality. The perspective of scientific realism is very much subordinated to the field of epistemology, a cousin of ontology and metaphysics it could said, and children of 'Aristotolian' philosophy. With respect to epistemology, the whole matter of observable existence made through scientific realism would belong to the school of thought known as 'epitemological internalism', while the non-observable existence would belong to the school of thought of 'epistemological externalism'. That being said, all of it is part and parcel of the larger 'human defined' and 'consensus derived' concept and notions of 'reality'. Until man, through thinking, distinguishing and 'languaging', NAMES particular 'objects', along with its demonstrable relation to others, there is no existence, as far as man is concerned. The fact that man, through the scientific process, and subsequently through scientific realism, has NAMED into relative existence such objects (observable or not) as 'nothingness', 'infinite universes', 'the unknown', etc., fully supports the premise that nothing outside of 'our reality' exists!!! Including that which you refer as '... outside of our reality...' !!! First of all, the term scientific persective is being used a little loosly. I was using the term to help 'specify' (less loosely!) the term 'reality', which IMO opinion you were using way more loosely. Had you not noted? science gives exlpinations for facts, it doesnt make them. If there is an established scientific therory, its not a guess, it a proven explination of a fact. reality and existence are not the same your your right, but I never said that did I? I said science has proven that reality does exist. You implied so (confused, collapsed) in your earlier statement: '... physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well...' That is so profoundly inaccurate, it is totally incorrect. Physics does no such thing as establish the existence of 'realities'!!! It scientifically demonstrates the 'existence' of 'objects' (descriptive, used to specify that which science attempts to demonstrate: prove or disprove); observable objects (internalism), as well as non-observable objects (externalism). So while you never 'said' that reality and existence are the same, you did much worse by confusing the science was proving the existence of 'realities'. NEVER!!! The existence of non-observable objects which are very much part of our reality: YES!!! replace reality with water, dark matter, President Obama, whatever, but saying something exists is not the same as saying existence and reality are not distinct! lol I dont even know where you came up with that! No I won't replace any such thing with reality. I would suggest however that YOU replace all such terms with 'observably in existence', or 'non-observably in existence'. It is only then that 'objects' enter into 'OUR REALITY'. And as far as your arguments go, seriously think about it. Maing a clam like yours is a little far reaching. Theis world existed long before man, men are nothng more than the blink of an eye in terms of the whole universe. sciencee would not exist without man your right. (well unless theres "others" out there) But all your saying is that explinations created by man of why things happened or how they happen would not exist. Dugh. We dont name things into existence, that where I disagree with you. Lets not make up definitions, lets use established definitions shall we. Existance, and observing or agknowledging are not the same thing. Before concluding that it is far reaching, you might invest some time in understanding what the claim 'really' says, rather than what you interpret it to say. Obviously, you're struggling with that one, and I don't know if you will allow me to help you. But here goes nothing. If you are ignoring the context for reality provided by 'observable' and 'non-observable objects', which we have named into reality, I can understand how you would completely miss my point and deliver the misinterpretation that you have. Two simple 'objects' our ancestors have named into existence for us, a fair time ago: PAST, FUTURE and INFINITE along with KNOWN and UNKNOWN should help you understand that my claim isn't so far fetch. If you have a problem with including in our 'named existence', which is part of OUR REALITY, that which came before 'us', and will come long after us (maybe), inside of that which are partly observable and that which are non-observable objects, I can't help you. It would appear from your reply that you are not genuinely interested in any form of intelligent dialogue, in spite of your claiming so. I can now experience first hand, this misinterpretation 'virus' you seem to carry, which 'JaneStart1' referred to earlier. There comes a point where there are too many twisted, misinterpreted, out-of-context stated, and conveniently re-worded points in your rebuttals to continue according you a spirit of good faith and integrity. I wish you to quickly recover from that 'misinterpretation' virus, and look forward to possible civilized and intelligent exchanges when you feel better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voilazur, I just got finished typing a witty rebuttle to your last message. But after about 3 seconds of thought, this is to much a profound topic, and your perspective to intriging and interesting to let pride and emotion get in the way of knowledge.
So Im going to drop my pride and predudice for a sec, and pretend were face to face in a coffe shop. I order My coffe black and strong, and buy what ever you will have... Tell me if im wrong, But essentialy what your saying is reality is nothing more than perception correct? So can i say that we have to accept that there is individual perception, and collective perception? The essential definition of perception, is an individual or collective view of the universe based on interplay from past experience, moral and religous beliefes, influence, mood, time of the moth ect... Now heres my question. If I say an unobserved object thing or system does not exist, what do I mean by exist? You said physics doesnt prove reality, You must not have to much knowledge on Quantum Mechanics, (not ment to be offensive in any way) does that mean that QM, and QT dont exist? I know for a fact they do, I have spent the better part of a year studying that facinating field. So ultimatly, we need to define existence in the context your using. Unless Im missing something. Im not attacking you in any way, Im asking and honest to God question over a cup o joe. Please respond accordingly, and lets prove evryone wrong that two people with two opposing views can resolve issues. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voilazuur, Im waitnig... I was using basic sylogism before to refute your arguments, but I actully did some research on your information, and I came up with some interesting stuff! So uh...where exactly are you getting your information? Id love to talk to about this, intelligently of course. There are some rather major contradictions and inconcistencies that I would love for you to explain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Wow, I'm gone for a day and all of a sudden the thread about logical bullying gets all tangled up and everyone seems to be choking on wool.
..and glass rods, heh heh Physics joke. Let's lighten up people. If you want to discuss existentialism, I am well-studied. But as with all philosophy, existentialism doesn't exist...or does it?  Hooray for dancing bananas..very nutritional..for the soul. OK, no dancing bananas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you want, it's 3:46am where i exist...if I do exist. I better go with something simple. Now, I think Jane should come back in here, so we can explain why nobody is mad at anybody else. In the meantime, here is one you should hear, if you haven't heard it already. Sorry, unknown author:
Hold on I'm thinking of it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, here it is:
He who knows and doesn't know that he knows, is asleep...wake him He who doesn't know, and doesn't know that he doesn't know, is a child... teach him He who doesn't know, and thinks that he knows, is a fool...shun him. He who knows and knows that he knows, is a wise man...follow him You likey? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MGB:
1. He who knows and doesn't know that he knows, is asleep...wake him 2. He who doesn't know, and doesn't know that he doesn't know, is a child... teach him 3. He who doesn't know, and thinks that he knows, is a fool...shun him. 4. He who knows and knows that he knows, is a wise man...follow him * Greate answer, MGB, thank you!!! Unfortunately, he (as a Math student) seems to fall in the 2nd + 3rd cattegories -- He who doesn't know, and doesn't know that he doesn't know, But thinks that he knows -- because he operates with the Partial (i.e. incomplete) Knowledge and thinks that is enough for passing judgements on everything!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a big difference between an openminded person, and a cynical person. Logic is great, but how far can we get with logic if were not willing to look at every thing? Iv always said that arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless and abusive towards logic. One thing about logic i think we can all agree on, It is used TO FIND THE TRUTH the question is why. why? i challenge everyone who wants to respond to this or anyother post, to ask themselves "why am i doing this?" is it to prove him wrong? is it to exchange ideas and perspective? do i want to shoot someone down just to make myself appear superior? or do i want to save this guy some trouble or give him some advice? Think of how much further we would get if every one asked why. oh, theres another part, if you came up with any answer havingto do with appearing superior or proving some one wrong, dont reply! problem solved :wink If a person can convey their thoughts in a way that shares ideas while showing indifference, stoically doing so, they can create profound points. In regards to your post, I am an open minded person, yet I can choose to act cynical. Logic is a process. Using Logic without looking at and trying to understand everything involved is actually not using Logic at all. What you say is Logical. It is used to find the truth. Truth is only of great importance to ourselves. We must find OUR truth. Like you say, making one's self appear superior proves nothing in an arguement or discussion. It only creates a legend in the person's own mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voilazuur, Im waitnig... I was using basic sylogism before to refute your arguments, but I actully did some research on your information, and I came up with some interesting stuff! So uh...where exactly are you getting your information? Id love to talk to about this, intelligently of course. There are some rather major contradictions and inconcistencies that I would love for you to explain... YOU'RE WAITING?!?!?! WOW!!! That's a tad revealing!!! Have you trained people around you to respond so??? Or is that what you have been subjected to??? From your post above, it would appear that you finally chose to review and look-up some stuff. It's a first step in opening a genuine dialogue. Not there yet, but a first step, and that's good. Now, you say that you came across '... major' contradictions and 'inconsistencies', and would 'love' for me to explain such ...' Well, don't stop there: go ahead and post those findings of yours, and we all shall see whether it is material worth '... talking about it, intelligently of course...' as you put it. As a hint to forward the dialogue, as I presume this is your sincere intent, try and sort out and think through some of those bits you call contradictions and inconsistencies before you post them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason,
From an interested bystander's position I come to offer you a little advice here. Voile is no dummy, and will read(pretty damned accurately I might add) the overt and possible/probable covert meaning behind your expressions. He has gained a tremendous amount of respect from me and deserves such from you as well. Do yourself a favor here and quit answering questions for other people before they have the opportunity to do so themselves. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason, From an interested bystander's position I come to offer you a little advice here. Voile is no dummy, and will read(pretty damned accurately I might add) the overt and possible/probable covert meaning behind your expressions. He has gained a tremendous amount of respect from me and deserves such from you as well. Do yourself a favor here and quit answering questions for other people before they have the opportunity to do so themselves. Why help him to hide who he really is? Some, like JaneStar, saw right away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason, From an interested bystander's position I come to offer you a little advice here. Voile is no dummy, and will read(pretty damned accurately I might add) the overt and possible/probable covert meaning behind your expressions. He has gained a tremendous amount of respect from me and deserves such from you as well. Do yourself a favor here and quit answering questions for other people before they have the opportunity to do so themselves. Why help him to hide who he really is? Some, like JaneStar, saw right away. Who am I Massage? The only oppertunity I have to participate in dialoug is when im under fire, and when it gets to that point, I could publish a masterpiece but I would still get shot down. Ok, Im just as guilty of everyone else, but Im tired of having to fight my way through these conversations, so Im going to try something else. Creative, your right, I was impatient and jumped the gun. Advice taken. Voilazure, If you will repond to my prior post, the one about the cofee, Id be glad to talk about it. For the record, I never doubted your intellect. But it is very hard to have intelligent dialoug when your constanly insulting me. Mabey that wasnt your intention, but thats how I percieved it. If youd like to start again, Im more than willing, and I will attempt to meet and acceed your standards. Im not very popular in these forums, despite efforts to cultivate and nurture civilized conversations (failed..miserably), but if You all are objective and logical thinkers, that shouldnt matter. Please do not allow any animosoty towards me come between a fair and free exchange of ideas. If my argument is attacked, fair enough, ill argue back mabey we will learn something. If I am personally attacked..well what happenes when any of you are personally attacked? Ill do my part to the best of my abilities, Im not perfect, most of you have been alive alot longer than I have, I have alot to learn. All I ask is that you all do the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 To grow, one must accept change... Or make adjustments as you call it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Sat 01/16/10 10:05 PM
|
|
jason:
To grow, one must accept change... Or make adjustments as you call it. Too bad he doesn't heed to his own advise!-- ISN'T THAT WHAT BULYING IS? ? ?   * * * Nevertheless, I don't blame jason for his good intentions: --> He's just got enlightened (through his studies) and wanted to enlighten the rest of us -- "Uneducated, illogical bunch of foolish guys and gals"... ________________________________BUT_______________________________ >>> that particular short-sightedness of his is what I find most objectional!!! (i.e. he erroneously presumes a bit too much!!!) The main postulate of Computer Programming states: "NEVER ASSUME! CUZ WHEN you _ASSUME, YOUR MAKING "a fool" out of U and ME * * * ---(sorry, but the vulgarity-checker doesn't let me use the 1st syllable of the word "ASSume"!) And, so far, all he's accomplished is making quite "a fool" out of himself!!! **********Though, I hope, he will adjust accordingly... P.S. I find it curious Why someone, who studies Math, is so consistently prone to making THE SAME grammar mistakes? ? ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Sun 01/17/10 12:05 AM
|
|
jason: To grow, one must accept change... Or make adjustments as you call it. Too bad he doesn't heed to his own advise!-- ISN'T THAT WHAT BULYING IS? ? ? * * * Nevertheless, I don't blame jason for his good intentions: --> He's just got enlightened (through his studies) and wanted to enlighten the rest of us -- "Uneducated, illogical bunch of foolish guys and gals"... ________________________________BUT_______________________________ >>> that particular short-sightedness of his is what I find most objectional!!! (i.e. he erroneously presumes a bit too much!!!) The main postulate of Computer Programming states: "NEVER ASSUME! CUZ WHEN you _ASSUME, YOUR MAKING "a fool" out of U and ME * * * ---(sorry, but the vulgarity-checker doesn't let me use the 1st syllable of the word "ASSume"!) And, so far, all he's accomplished is making quite "a fool" out of himself!!! **********Though, I hope, he will adjust accordingly... P.S. I find it curious Why someone, who studies Math, is so consistently prone to making THE SAME grammar mistakes? ? ? Wait, you made a commet about adjusting. I agreed, and you edited that commet, which was origionaly posted before my last commet, saying I should heed my own advise..which was me agreeing..with you... I feel...violated. That is low! Good God, just take a crow bar and beat me with it, that would be a little more humane. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Sun 01/17/10 01:01 AM
|
|
WHAT THE F./_HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ? ? ?
Personally, I don't know who has, But I never made a comment about adjusting!!! (such verbs aren't in my vocabulary...) * * * This is like your claims of my calling you aFOOL!!!  Anyways, I join voileazur in wishing you a speedy recovery!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 01/17/10 11:23 AM
|
|
Geeze, give the guy a break. At least he is using his mind to think about things, and he can type and construct legible sentences. (In this country that is commendable for a 21 year old.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Sun 01/17/10 12:01 PM
|
|
WHAT THE F./_HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ? ? ? Personally, I don't know who has, But I never made a comment about adjusting!!! (such verbs aren't in my vocabulary...) * * * This is like your claims of my calling you aFOOL!!! Anyways, I join voileazur in wishing you a speedy recovery!!! Jane said: And, so far, all he's accomplished is making quite "a fool" out of himself!!! **********Though, I hope, he will adjust accordingly " ... hope he will adjust accordingly... " Also Jane said: "And, so far, all he's accomplished is making quite "a fool" out of himself!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a reminder to keep it civil. Debate/discuss the topic or post but not the poster(s)
Kim |
|
|
|
|
