A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:19 am 

To add more... wonderful BiV... we've discussed quantum mechanics before. You know a lot more about it than me. As an uninterpreted formalism, it is uncontroversial. People like Einstein don't like this.

"What do the terms mean?"

Then the trouble begins... but I'm a loser; not a fighter
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 25th, 2017, 11:29 am 

Well, yes, part of my point was as to what the terms mean, as, for example, what does "men" mean in my version of the syllogism. What does "men" mean such that we could get a conclusion that "some men have ovaries," in a world where men are defined as "persons who most definitely do not have ovaries." That's all part of the "words are vague unless we sculpt them very carefully" thing, no? Assigning values in the syllogism, means great precision is needed in defining those values, otherwise we get "people who can never have ovaries have ovaries." Or I'm missiing something, as often happens.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7303
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:34 am 

Braininvat » June 26th, 2017, 12:29 am wrote:Well, yes, part of my point was as to what the terms mean, as, for example, what does "men" mean in my version of the syllogism. What does "men" mean such that we could get a conclusion that "some men have ovaries," in a world where men are defined as "persons who most definitely do not have ovaries." That's all part of the "words are vague unless we sculpt them very carefully" thing, no? Assigning values in the syllogism, means great precision is needed in defining those values, otherwise we get "people who can never have ovaries have ovaries." Or I'm missiing something, as often happens.


No, meanings are completely irrelevant. All that matters is syntactic structure. It's a nerd thing. That's why you get a laid a lot and I don't. Ask Lomax, LOL
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:36 am 

I think

Don't mean to sound assertive.

I'm almost certainly wrong, according to my own personal pessimistic induction.

And tomorrow is Monday. Sigh
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:38 am 

We have not yet assigned values to A, B, and C. That's where you scientist dudes come in :-)

(when not on vacation)
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:52 am 

Braininvat » June 26th, 2017, 12:29 am wrote:Well, yes, part of my point was as to what the terms mean, as, for example, what does "men" mean in my version of the syllogism. What does "men" mean such that we could get a conclusion that "some men have ovaries," in a world where men are defined as "persons who most definitely do not have ovaries." That's all part of the "words are vague unless we sculpt them very carefully" thing, no? Assigning values in the syllogism, means great precision is needed in defining those values, otherwise we get "people who can never have ovaries have ovaries." Or I'm missiing something, as often happens.


Who mentioned ovaries again? Strawmaaaannnnnnnn!!! See ya in court.

We're all mature *giggle* adults *hic* here *cough* and can say *chuckle* vagina without people bowdlerizing.

Hey Beavis, he said "virgin". Tee hee
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 25th, 2017, 5:16 pm 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote:
Sivad » June 25th, 2017, 1:47 pm wrote:

LOL What do assign to common descent? This reality might be a great big hoax but common descent sure does appear to be the case. If not then it's definitely what the hoaxer wants me to believe.


I've been immediately impressed by your insightfulness, Sivad, since your appearance in SPCF.

It's a very good question, and one that induces conflicting intuitions in me. I'm inclined to say, given the paleological evidence, and my limited understanding thereof, extremely high.

Yes, I know, confusing, isn't it. It's beyond my powers of visualization to imagine how it could be wrong. On the other hand, it's well within everyone's powers of visualization to concede we've been in this position of near certainty before -- and been wrong.

I hope you'll continue to post. You strike me as a very wise man.


Thanks, I plan to stick around. I think perspective comes naturally when you don't have an axe to grind, right? Whatever the case may be it's been that all along so there's no sense in deluding ourselves. It is what it is whatever it turns out to be.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 25th, 2017, 6:28 pm 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 8:34 am wrote:
Braininvat » June 26th, 2017, 12:29 am wrote:Well, yes, part of my point was as to what the terms mean, as, for example, what does "men" mean in my version of the syllogism. What does "men" mean such that we could get a conclusion that "some men have ovaries," in a world where men are defined as "persons who most definitely do not have ovaries." That's all part of the "words are vague unless we sculpt them very carefully" thing, no? Assigning values in the syllogism, means great precision is needed in defining those values, otherwise we get "people who can never have ovaries have ovaries." Or I'm missiing something, as often happens.


No, meanings are completely irrelevant. All that matters is syntactic structure. It's a nerd thing. That's why you get a laid a lot and I don't. Ask Lomax, LOL


Gosh, no one's ever suggested I'm a non-nerd before. I usually emit nerd pheromones at a concentration that causes jocks to converge from all directions ready for a beat-down. "Poindextrose," is the main chemical component.

I'm nerd enough to reject "meanings are irrelevant" - to paraphrase some cunning linguist, "No syntax without semantics."
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7303
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
NoShips liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 25th, 2017, 6:37 pm 

I used ovary, rather than vagina, because some annoying smartass could point out that a man partway through SR surgery could possess a vagina before all other alterations completed a formal transition. But nowhere do men have actual ovaries transplanted into their bodies. So my choice was to preserve clarity in the example, over in the "Jack" thread. In the future, of course, semantics could get muddled by some medical innovation, and the syllogism could yield a true proposition...

...which is me, conceding your point. State of affairs can change, logic doesn't, ness-pah?
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7303
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 7:13 pm 

Logic, as I see it, BiV, is simply a set of rules of inference applied to uninterpreted symbols. But, hey, who really cares, eh?

Once an interpretation is given, we're in the real world. I like it better uninterpreted. Safer here.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 7:15 pm 

Once an interpretation is given, we find out if logic matches up with reality. Nelson Goodman has a wonderful quote on this. Lemme search....

Edit: Found it...

"A rule is amended if it yields an inference we are unwilling to accept; an inference is rejected if it violates a rule we are unwilling to amend."

No one liked him much either LOL.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan
BioWizard liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 7:20 pm 

I used ovary, rather than vagina, because some annoying smartass could point out that a man partway through SR surgery could possess a vagina before all other alterations completed a formal transition.[/color] But nowhere do men have actual ovaries transplanted into their bodies. So my choice was to preserve clarity in the example[/color], over in the "Jack" thread. In the future, of course, semantics could get muddled by some medical innovation, and the syllogism could yield a true proposition...


This is an outrage. We'll stick to vaginas on my watch, Mr Christian!

Or else get your own ovary thread *snicker*

You're making a mockery of the proceedings, Mr Sims!
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 9:22 pm 

I'd like an answer to the question, Judge.

Colonel Ken, DID YOU ORDER THE 99% OBJECTIVE PROBABILITY ASSIGNMENT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

The "You snotty little bastard" response is not countenanced here in Sparta.
Last edited by NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 9:33 pm 

You want me on that wall.

You need me on that wall.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby SciameriKen on June 25th, 2017, 9:34 pm 

NoShips » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:22 am wrote:I'd like an answer to the question, Judge.

Colonel Ken, DID YOU ORDER A 99% OBJECTIVE PROBABILITY ASSIGNMENT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

The "You snotty little bastard" response is not countenanced here in Sparta.



I have neither the time, nor the inclination for a man who enjoys the data that I provide, but then questions the manner in which I provide it. The fact of the matter is you want me in that lab - you need me in that lab!
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
NoShips liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 9:36 pm 

Tee hee

Told them you were a sweet fellah. Some people just never listen.

:-)
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 9:37 pm 

SciameriKen » June 26th, 2017, 10:34 am wrote:
I have neither the time, nor the inclination for a man who enjoys the data that I provide, but then questions the manner in which I provide it. The fact of the matter is you want me in that lab - you need me in that lab!


Blah blah blah. Found a cure for my illnesses yet?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 10:09 pm 

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And these walls have to be defended by people like me. I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.

Hmm, think I'll go get more beer and keep America safe.

Call it a window of opportunity for you. LOL
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 10:12 pm 

Conclusions:

1. There is no "Scientific Method"

2. Probability assignments to scientific theories are subjective.

3. Everyone hates me


I'd like a transfer off the base, Colonel. Would the Marshall Islands be out of the question?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 10:16 pm 

None of this would've happened if Chuck Norris hadn't stolen my pocket money at school.

But, hey, what does psychology have to with epistemology?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 25th, 2017, 10:37 pm 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 7:12 pm wrote:
There is no "Scientific Method"


Science isn't a method, but it is methodical.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby SciameriKen on June 25th, 2017, 10:41 pm 

NoShips » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:12 am wrote:Conclusions:

1. There is no "Scientific Method"

2. Probability assignments to scientific theories are subjective.

3. Everyone hates me


I'd like a transfer off the base, Colonel. Would the Marshall Islands be out of the question?



I personally would like for you to challenge yourself more. You critiqued Dawkins which was good - but when I identified weaknesses in your understanding of evolutionary theory you retreated back to your safe place, returning to this topic again and again. Why don't you gain a better understanding of evolutionary theory if your intent is to challenge it publicly.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 10:49 pm 

SciameriKen » June 26th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:

I personally would like for you to challenge yourself more. You critiqued Dawkins which was good - but when I identified weaknesses in your understanding of evolutionary theory you retreated back to your safe place, returning to this topic again and again. Why don't you gain a better understanding of evolutionary theory if your intent is to challenge it publicly.


Because I'm fat and ugly and can't understand it.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby SciameriKen on June 25th, 2017, 10:54 pm 

NoShips » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:49 am wrote:
SciameriKen » June 26th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:

I personally would like for you to challenge yourself more. You critiqued Dawkins which was good - but when I identified weaknesses in your understanding of evolutionary theory you retreated back to your safe place, returning to this topic again and again. Why don't you gain a better understanding of evolutionary theory if your intent is to challenge it publicly.


Because I'm fat and ugly and can't understand it.


Perhaps you have bigger challenges right now then learning about ET. Take care man...
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 10:59 pm 

The silliness of my answer is commensurate with the silliness of your question, dude. Sigh.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:04 pm 

So, you've pegged me, eh, Ken? Thick as shite and doesn't understand ET.

Come to think of it, I'm inclined to agree.

Do you understand it?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:31 pm 

Ken, let's get philosophical. I already called in sick and will devote my day to you.

What exactly is natural selection? A law of nature? A force? Or what?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 25th, 2017, 11:33 pm 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 8:31 pm wrote:Ken, let's get philosophical. I already called in sick and will devote my day to you.

What exactly is natural selection? A law of nature? A force? Or what?


It's a mechanism.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:41 pm 

Sivad » June 26th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:
It's a mechanism.


Ok, does the world agree? Or is this an opinion?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:50 pm 

Sivad » June 26th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:
It's a mechanism.


Cool.

Q1: Is it a law?

Q2: Is it a force?

Q3: How da fook do you know?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests