• 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.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

acbytesla said:
Really? :rolleyes:

Science can demonstrate over and over again infinitum and without a known excepetion

When you can, get back to us.
Click to expand...


“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Stephen Hawking

When you can, read more.

You talk like a priest.

trw8olo.png
 
devhdb said:
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Stephen Hawking

When you can, read more.

You talk like a priest.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/trw8olo.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That’s Hume’s induction problem, which was a driver for Karl Popper’s falsification concept. What’s the rest of it? Do you know or is this more Google quote regurgitation? In any case, Hawking is referencing both.
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
You've been told several times here that scientists know they can't "prove" things - that's for maths. Scientists accumulate observations that support hypotheses. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

It was still a fair response to the post he was quoting. Shame this is a points scoring exercise and not a discussion though.
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Stephen Hawking

When you can, read more.

You talk like a priest.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/trw8olo.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's nothing new. All human knowledge is "provisional". But that doesn't mean that you can put the theory of the Flat Earth to the level of the theory of gravity. There are very important differences that you can't ignore unless you don't mind talking nonsense.There is "provisional" knowledge that has stood up to testing for over five hundred years. Others have failed to pass even one. I suppose you don't want to see the difference, but it exists and it is not trivial.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
That's nothing new. All human knowledge is "provisional". But that doesn't mean that you can put the theory of the Flat Earth to the level of the theory of gravity. There are very important differences that you can't ignore unless you don't mind talking nonsense.There is provisional knowledge that has stood up to testing for over five hundred years. Others have failed to pass even one. I suppose you don't want to see the difference, but it exists and it is not trivial.
Click to expand...

And to forestall the usual "nobody is allowed to disagree with the scientific orthodoxy" line, let's all remember that every young scientist dreams of being the one to demonstrate a problem with established theory. Doing so just once would make their career. It usually stays in the realm of dream because it's quite hard to do so.
 
So what devhdb appears to be saying here is that we should accept the possibility that homeopathic medicine works in the same that we should accept the possibility that the Earth is flat.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
So what devhdb appears to be saying here is that we should accept the possibility that homeopathic medicine works in the same that we should accept the possibility that the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

He's just butthurt that the scientific mainstream is denying his hobby-horse the phlogiston of publicity. Meanies.
 
devhdb said:
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Stephen Hawking

When you can, read more.

You talk like a priest.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/trw8olo.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yeah, speaking of reading more, this is straight up cherry-picked. You would not have cited Hawking on this topic if you'd read what he wrote about model dependent realism. Perhaps you should take your own advice and crack a book or two instead of doing keyword searches for out of context quotes.
 
It's just the usual "Science doesn't know everything, therefore it's fine for me to wilfully ignore what it does know".

We know the Earth is not flat, and we know homeopathy does not work. Sorry if either fact upsets some ignorant people, but that's just tough.
 
Robin said:
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that people discuss it because they find it interesting?

I don't get this thing where the fact that you are not interested in a subject means that you have to attempt to pour clumsy insults on.those who are.

If it doesn't interest you then make use of this time to do something that does interest you.
Click to expand...


That comment was...random. The topic was the merit of a class of ideas, and how some of those ideas are given unearned respect simply because of their supposed cultural pedigree, not about how "interesting" one finds the subject matter. Those are not the same thing.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He's just butthurt that the scientific mainstream is denying his hobby-horse the phlogiston of publicity. Meanies.
Click to expand...


It's really impossible to have a cogent discussion with folks who take everything so personal/defensive and proceed merely by interjecting fallacacies.
 
LarryS said:
It's really impossible to have a cogent discussion with folks who take everything so personal/defensive and proceed merely by interjecting fallacacies.
Click to expand...

There is a very high number of posts from you where you are directly complaining about this forum and how it does not meet your high standards of discussion culture.

Now that you have thoroughly established that, in your opinion, we are all big meanys , may I suggest you find a forum where everyone pats you on the shoulder for posting the solipsism stuff you regularly post here?
 
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/aEtR0mZ.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200423/6b20cac64ba66144d134c6df26b908d3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I'd just like to add that even if one were truly agnostic between dualismWP and monismWP, it is not clear why the existence of subjective experiences arising exclusively from specific bundles of neurons firing in certain ways would somehow militate in favor of the former rather than the latter.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'd just like to add that even if one were truly agnostic between dualismWP and monismWP, it is not clear why the existence of subjective experiences arising exclusively from specific bundles of neurons firing in certain ways would somehow militate in favor of the former rather than the latter.
Click to expand...
Do we know that subjective experience only arises in this way? These threads never go anywhere because one naturally inserts so many unverifiable assumptions that the arguments become circular.
 
shuttlt said:
Do we know that subjective experience only arises in this way? These threads never go anywhere because one naturally inserts so many unverifiable assumptions that the arguments become circular.
Click to expand...

That's how you can tell if someone is really knowledgeable about the topic. He would not take part in threads like this.
Wait ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom