• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
There are observable data from which reasonable deductions follow. Science is based on that fact, not on your bug-bear. You are not an expert on science.

...
Click to expand...

Epistemological rationalism doesn't work outside the brain. Start reading the deconstruction of that. All logic are tautological in itself and only says something about thinking. You can't use thinking on that which doesn't depend on thinking, the universe as such is not depended on thinking.
Your thinking is caused by something, which doesn't think.
 
So basically no matter how wrong or useless your way of thinking it is Philosophy says it's still a valid "world view."

Nonsense.

Not every way of looking at the world is valid, to say nothing of equally valid. This wishy-washy "Nobody is wrong therefore I'm right" game is anti-intellectual apologetics.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
And I get that you are an expert on thinking for everybody...
Click to expand...

Not my claim.

...not being you and not accepting that you hold the ONE worldview.
Click to expand...

Not my claim.

You claim of ONE worldview...
Click to expand...

Not my claim.

You can, because you can explain everybody else wrong by reference to the whole; i.e. what the universe really is.
Click to expand...

Not my claim.

I am a deviation from the mean, because I am a special needs person and some people will go out of their way signalling that I am not part of their "we".
Click to expand...

Your special needs form no part of my argument.

You've completely misrepresented my argument (as usual) and tried to curry sympathy by suggesting that I pick on you because of your special needs. It would be hard to imagine a more blatantly dishonest and self-serving approach than the one you've adopted today.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. You are neither an expert in my thinking nor an expert on the thinking that prevails in science. Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
Click to expand...

You can't show that all premises are true and thus your deduction is unsound.
One of your premises is, that you can trust logic to say something about soundness(the rest of the universe), but that makes it unsound, because something is not true, just because you say so.
You are in effect trying to solve Agrippa's Trilemma. Nobody can do that.
Hence I as a skeptic in the end state, what I believe. You claim evidence for your axioms. You can't, but you do it anyway.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
You can't show that all premises are true and thus your deduction is unsound.
Click to expand...

So your answer is "Just make everything up?"

Why does "Philosophy" get to hold other methodologies to made up standards it foists on them but doesn't follow itself?

"Science can't life itself up by its own bootstraps and create a set that contains itself therefore magic is real."
 
JayUtah said:
That is not what is meant by deduction in science. Stop trying to play teacher; you are not qualified. You're just latching onto words in people's posts and Google-pontificating blindly.



Not my claim.
Click to expand...

A deduction in science is still logical. You said so yourself. The result is valid(reason your words), but that says nothing about soundness. That is observation/test/experiment, but your claim has no observable effect, because there is no time and space. Observation presumes time and space.
Your claim is epistemological rationalism/foundationalism in a sense.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Why does "Philosophy" get to hold other methodologies to made up standards it foists on them but doesn't follow itself?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I mentioned "deduction," whereafter Tommy seems to have recognized it as a word he knows, and thought he address my point by giving us a mini-lecture on the general concept. The role of deduction in science is related to the principles that make deductively strong arguments what they are. But it is not an equivalent concept to making a deductive argument. Tommy doesn't know how science works, and probably doesn't want to admit that he doesn't. So he's trying to tap-dance his way through an irrelevant bit of elementary philosophy lest we forget what a genius he is.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
A deduction in science is still logical. You said so yourself.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said. Try to make at least one post today that doesn't frantically rewrite what I said. And please just accept that we know when you're faking it. I said "reasonable deduction" in the context of scientific methodology. In response you hastily Googled up an unrelated elementary concept and tried to make that what I was talking about.

The result is valid(reason your words),
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to link to where I used those words.

Observation presumes time and space.
Click to expand...

You still really have no clue how science actually works. You need to divest yourself of the caricature of it you keep referring to.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
It doesn't. I mentioned "deduction," whereafter Tommy seems to have recognized it as a word he knows, and thought he address my point by giving us a mini-lecture on the general concept. The role of deduction in science is related to the principles that make deductively strong arguments what they are. But it is not an equivalent concept to making a deductive argument. Tommy doesn't know how science works, and probably doesn't want to admit that he doesn't. So he's trying to tap-dance his way through an irrelevant bit of elementary philosophy lest we forget what a genius he is.
Click to expand...

Any deduction is a form of thinking, the thinking may be correct/logical/reasonable, but that says nothing about the rest of the world. That requires observation.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Any deduction is a form of thinking, the thinking may be correct/logical/reasonable, but that says nothing about the rest of the world. That requires observation.
Click to expand...

*Head desk*

But whenever we "observe" something you turn around and go "Aha! Now prove what you observed isn't just some illusion created by magic! You fell into my clever trap!" except... not that coherently.

You demand we follow standards in one breath then reject them because we haven't proven them in your next spaced over 5 paragraphs of "A Cat Just Walked Across My Keyboard" level nonsense.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You demand we follow standards in one breath then reject them because we haven't proven them in your next spaced over 5 paragraphs of "A Cat Just Walked Across My Keyboard" level nonsense.
Click to expand...

He's trying to claim we haven't remained consistent with our own standards because we can't directly observe the Big Bang. He wants to claim anything that can't be directly observed empirically is not science, therefore the Big Bang (and all it implies) is not science. This is his private definition of science, and he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he's wrong about it. I'll leave it to the readers to speculate why he is so unwilling.
 
JayUtah said:
He's trying to claim we haven't remained consistent with our own standards because we can't directly observe the Big Bang. He wants to claim anything that can't be directly observed empirically is not science, therefore the Big Bang (and all it implies) is not science. This is his private definition of science, and he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he's wrong about it. I'll leave it to the readers to speculate why he is so unwilling.
Click to expand...

Here what I know. I don't know that you are thinking, because you said so yourself and I don't know that we are thinking differently. Since I am not able to say anything about your thinking, I conclude that you are not thinking at all.

Now any deduction regardless of sub-variant if it includes logic(and math) produces a result. That result is valid, if it follows from the axioms and don't include a contradiction or some form of fallacies.
So no matter how special your deductions are, they are brain-based; i.e. they are a form of thinking.
But that says nothing about the observable universe, because for that you use observation to check, not thinking.
Deductions can make a prediction, but are checked through observation
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Here what I know. I don't know that you are thinking, because you said so yourself and I don't know that we are thinking differently. Since I am not able to say anything about your thinking, I conclude that you are not thinking at all.

Now any deduction regardless of sub-variant if it includes logic(and math) produces a result. That result is valid, if it follows from the axioms and don't include a contradiction or some form of fallacies.
So no matter how special your deductions are, they are brain-based; i.e. they are a form of thinking.
But that says nothing about the observable universe, because for that you use observation to check, not thinking.
Deductions can make a prediction, but are checked through observation
Click to expand...

Gibberish. You still don't get it.
 
JayUtah said:
He's trying to claim we haven't remained consistent with our own standards because we can't directly observe the Big Bang. He wants to claim anything that can't be directly observed empirically is not science, therefore the Big Bang (and all it implies) is not science. This is his private definition of science, and he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he's wrong about it. I'll leave it to the readers to speculate why he is so unwilling.
Click to expand...

Oh I get that. It's the same "Science is only a thing that happens in labs with beakers and labcoats" strawman version of science where you have to test the water with a 12 week double blind placebo controlled study to prove that it is wet before every bath that doesn't work in either our day to day lives or in regards to the "Big Question" (Trademarked) and we're just too stubborn to admit it that have been Tommy, David, and several other people's bread and butter.

A very, very, very narrow definition of "science" is behind 99% of these arguments.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Epistemological rationalism doesn't work outside the brain.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is a fantastically clever total inversion of actual facts.

I am a special needs person
Click to expand...

A) In what way?
B) What does that have to do with the thread?
C) If it's actually relevant, would you consider that this has perhaps something to do with your less-than-realistic ramblings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom