When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Off-topic TalkWhere overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.
Originally posted by chroot What can you know for CERTAIN? . . . A thing cannot both have a particular characteristic and not have it at the same time in the same way.
On 7-23 at 11:58 am, you state that consistency in Nature is a fact; that we know it for certain.
Originally posted by chroot No, I believe Nature is self-consistent.
At 2:01 pm that same day you back off just a bit; you no longer claim that consistency in nature is a fact, merely your belief.
Nature couldn't care less about your beliefs. It is either consistent or not consistent irrespective of what you believe.
Originally posted by chroot If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
Originally posted by chroot If not, all bets are off, and there can be no more rational thought.
The fact that you find a consequence of an hypothesis to be a bit unsettling is not proof that the hypothesis is false. Accepting without whining a conclusion you find unpalatable is a sign of maturity.
Originally posted by chroot We all have faith in something, scientist and clergy alike
Originally posted by chroot It's not faith -- it's a belief.
You're trying to make a distinction here, but your earlier statement casts a bit of doubt on the sincerity of, or at least the basis for, that distinction.
Originally posted by chroot In a visceral sense, I mean that the object of my faith (scientific understanding) may be disproved.
Originally posted by chroot And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
It certainly seems that you're using faith in science and belief in science (specifically, the consistency of nature) interchangeably.
Originally posted by chroot How is my faith better than yours? My faith can be disproved.
Originally posted by chroot And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.
How, exactly, can your faith be disproved? Similarly, how, exactly, can the consistency of Nature be disproved? I don't want to speak for you, but it seems from the body of your posts that the means to disprove the consistency of Nature would have to be scientific for you to accept them. Is this accurate?
Originally posted by chroot If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.
This ends up being remarkably self-serving, although I'm sure you never intended it that way. Presumably the only proof of Nature's inconsistency you would accept would be a scientific one, yet you say that if Nature is, in fact, inconsistent, no conclusions from science are reliable.
It sounds as though the question of the consistency of Nature must be answered by something beyond science; I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that it is fact.
Perhaps S2Kguy or woodyandy or JonasM might want to weigh in here to ponder that simple question: Can Nature allow a contradiction, or is there some fundamental property of Nature which makes contradiction impossible?
None of those posts were a magnum opus in which I had gathered every thought I've ever had or ever will have, and laid them out exactly as necessary to answer every question that ever has been asked or ever will be asked. Similarly, I have not had every thought I will ever have about everything, and naturally I will say something differently on Tuesday than I will on Monday. Is this really so surprising?
This is an online bulletin board, not a philosophy text. If you'd like me to go back and find every point where you clarified something by changing word choice, or decided to change phrasing to avoid being mistaken, I'm sure I'd find just as many examples. Personally, I don't really care to go through all of your posts and find the examples, though. I am disappointed that you take this tack with me, especially considering the weak nature of the examples given, and the condescending attitude shown in your post.
JonBoy, you act as if magician has accomplished some kind of triumph of good over evil -- why is that?
On 7-23 at 11:58 am, you state that consistency in Nature is a fact; that we know it for certain.
How did I "back off a bit?" 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. I happen to believe in that fact.
Accepting without whining a conclusion you find unpalatable is a sign of maturity.
Whining? Maturity? What exactly are you trying to say?
You're trying to make a distinction here, but your earlier statement casts a bit of doubt on the sincerity of, or at least the basis for, that distinction.
You're right, I was trying to make a distinction -- so why do you include this in your post? You don't have "faith" in science -- you have a belief. Faiths cannot disproved, but beliefs may be. It's a word choice issue. Since JonBoy in particular is in love with the concept that belief in the axioms of science is equivalent to faith in religion (which is preposterous to all of us, I believe), I have to choose words carefully to avoid setting off his Faith-o-Meter.
It certainly seems that you're using faith in science and belief in science (specifically, the consistency of nature) interchangeably.
Stated.
How, exactly, can your faith be disproved? Similarly, how, exactly, can the consistency of Nature be disproved? I don't want to speak for you, but it seems from the body of your posts that the means to disprove the consistency of Nature would have to be scientific for you to accept them. Is this accurate?
As I said, I hesitate to call it faith -- and it may be disproved by disproving its object. Even though it's not "deep enough" for you, the third of the "three certainties," as popularized by Ayn Rand, is enough for me to believe the Universe is self-consistent.
Now, "Is this accurate?" has the tone of a loaded question delivered to a witness by a lawyer. At risk of being attacked by you immediately upon answering, I will only say that the proof must be closed. The third certainty is closed.
It sounds as though the question of the consistency of Nature must be answered by something beyond science; I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that it is fact.
I've already answered this. Of course it's beyond science -- science depends upon it like math depends upon logic. You know this, so why pose it as a question for me? For the third and final time, it doesn't take empirical proof (since there can't be any), only a closed-form philosophical argument to convince me of something this basic.
Hey I got an idea.....let's put on a show in the old barn! We'll all make our own costumes and do The Last Supper on stage. He who blinks first is smited by the rest. At last. Closure.
The survivors then wrestle it out whether they had free will or it was destined to happen due to the neurons indigenous to their craniums.
