jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Can people please stop using words they don't understand? Cheers.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

In many discussions I've had with you, I have come away with the impression that you're being disingenuous. Is that always my fault, particularly when you come across as being so bitter?

Strange as I have exactly the opposite experience, with Thommo being far more reasonable and and non-combative that I would be in similar situations.
Perhaps you might want to consider that 'not agreeing with your interpetation of events' is not the same as being disengenuous.

If you want to experience the worst side of all the members here, then just say that you're no longer an atheist.

What's with the non-sequitur?

jamest wrote:In many discussions I've had with you, I have come away with the impression that you're being disingenuous. Is that always my fault, particularly when you come across to me as being so bitter?

Yes, it's always your fault. Did you follow the provided definition of "disingenuous"? If so, would you care to provide some of these myriad examples of me conducting discussion with you in a way that I don't sincerely believe? If your claim here is true, that should be easy enough.

And as a clarification, what you perceive as "bitter" is actually "severely fed up" with having to make this same clarification for half a fucking decade.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:In many discussions I've had with you, I have come away with the impression that you're being disingenuous. Is that always my fault, particularly when you come across to me as being so bitter?

Yes, it's always your fault. Did you follow the provided definition of "disingenuous"? If so, would you care to provide some of these myriad examples of me conducting discussion with you in a way that I don't sincerely believe? If your claim here is true, that should be easy enough.

And as a clarification, what you perceive as "bitter" is actually "severely fed up" with having to make this same clarification for half a fucking decade.

Your 'fedupness' dresses itself in all sorts of negative ways. Do you honestly think that I'm not fed up? Of course I am, but I have never done to you what you frequently try to do to me. My problem is that I'm too honest. Many of my warnings have been through calling a cunt a cunt. But I would never try to make someone who is not a cunt come across as a cunt. Yet, that's always what I think you're trying to do with me. I might be wrong, but that's how I feel. I'm just being honest. Maybe that will help, maybe it will make things worse, but I'd rather confront the atmosphere of bitterness I feel every time you talk to me, than ignore it. Do with that what you wish, but at least be honest about what you're doing.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote: At least, if it is a method, then all attempts to define what that method actually is have failed miserably. It turns out to be lots of different methods, with new ones being invented all the time. All well and good, unless you are hoping to define science in terms of it being a method.

More assertions offered without any evidence whatsoever, to support the initial blind assertion.

OK Thomas, let's run a little demonstration in just how little you understand about the topic you are talking about.

You think science is "a method", right?

So, then, what, exactly, is that method?

Does it involve things like observations and theories? If so, which comes first, the observations, or the theories?

I'll give you a clue. Think of two examples: Darwin's theory of evolution, and the attempt to observe and explain the motion of the planets before the Copernican revolution.

In Darwin's case, it looks like lots of observations took place, after which a theory was formulatd.

But now put yourself in the position of an astronomer observing the motion of Jupiter before Copernicus. What you observe is a planet moving in large arcs, with occasional loops. These are accurate observations - there's nothing wrong with the observations themselves. And you come up with a theory to explain how planets can move in arcs, with loops, occasionally stopping in the sky and going backwards for a while.

Looks like something has gone wrong, doesn't it?

Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?

Roughly speaking, the theoreitical consists in trying to account for as much data as one can while restricting the scope of the data one considers under a theory so that we can say what that scope is while accounting for data we collected using procedures we can document and repeat. What it does not consist of is pretending that leaving some questions unanswered while awaiting further data surely anticipates radical overturning of existing theories. Radical restructuring of theory is only justified by much greater generality of data accounted for. Furthermore, you may not simply make up from scratch what the concept of 'accounting for data' denotes. Probability and statistical theory are your first choices for quantifying how much of the data you're accounting for, making sure not to omit noting the confounding factors which might affect your analysis. Additionally, choosing appropriate scale for analysis tries to avoid analyzing something like the stock market by writing out its formal quantum mechanical wave function. Someone who tries to do that will be considered a 'crank', and combinatorial explosion helps us understand why it's a crank theory to propose that limitations in computing power are all that prevent us from accomplishing the task.

UndercoverElephant wrote:[youtube]

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[/youtube]

UndercoverElephant wrote: At least, if it is a method, then all attempts to define what that method actually is have failed miserably. It turns out to be lots of different methods, with new ones being invented all the time. All well and good, unless you are hoping to define science in terms of it being a method.

More assertions offered without any evidence whatsoever, to support the initial blind assertion.

OK Thomas, let's run a little demonstration in just how little you understand about the topic you are talking about.

Does that mean you're finally read to present sound arguments to support your position, rather than blind assertions and personalised remarks?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
You think science is "a method", right?

Wrong, I know it is.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
So, then, what, exactly, is that method?

Does it involve things like observations and theories? If so, which comes first, the observations, or the theories?


I'll give you a clue. Think of two examples: Darwin's theory of evolution, and the attempt to observe and explain the motion of the planets before the Copernican revolution.

In Darwin's case, it looks like lots of observations took place, after which a theory was formulatd.

But now put yourself in the position of an astronomer observing the motion of Jupiter before Copernicus. What you observe is a planet moving in large arcs, with occasional loops. These are accurate observations - there's nothing wrong with the observations themselves. And you come up with a theory to explain how planets can move in arcs, with loops, occasionally stopping in the sky and going backwards for a while.

Looks like something has gone wrong, doesn't it?

Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?

Is there are a point in your incoherent rambling and if so; care to phrase is it in a legible way, instead of beating around the bush?
Also you're still desperately trying to avoid your own burden of proof.
You've yet to provide a coherent defintiion of ' scienitific' evidence, nor have you provided a single coherent example of 'other' evidence.

Here's science by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
You think science is "a method", right?

Wrong, I know it is.

Well, then you'll be able to explain what that method is, won't you?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
So, then, what, exactly, is that method?

Does it involve things like observations and theories? If so, which comes first, the observations, or the theories?


I'll give you a clue. Think of two examples: Darwin's theory of evolution, and the attempt to observe and explain the motion of the planets before the Copernican revolution.

In Darwin's case, it looks like lots of observations took place, after which a theory was formulatd.

But now put yourself in the position of an astronomer observing the motion of Jupiter before Copernicus. What you observe is a planet moving in large arcs, with occasional loops. These are accurate observations - there's nothing wrong with the observations themselves. And you come up with a theory to explain how planets can move in arcs, with loops, occasionally stopping in the sky and going backwards for a while.

Looks like something has gone wrong, doesn't it?

Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?

Is there are a point in your incoherent rambling and if so; care to phrase is it in a legible way, instead of beating around the bush?

Oh dear Thomas? Did you struggle to understand my very clear explanation of the reasons why science can't be defined as a method? Because what I posted was neither incoherent, nor was it rambling. It was in fact the precise reason why the philosophers of science (you know...those people who actually tried to defend the idea that science is method, rather than just declaring that they "know" it to be so, having done no research or work on that topic) ended up rejecting the idea that science could be defined as a method.

Let me make it even simpler for you (not that I hold out much hope that you'll be able to understand it).

Science can't be defined as a method because that theory of what science is suffers from "chicken and egg" problem involving theories and observations. In short, you can't come up with a theory unless you've already made observations, but you can't make observations of a quality good enough for science unless they are made within the framework of existing theories. In the language of philosophy of science, observations tend to be "theory-laden", and something the theories they are laden with turn out to be wrong (e.g. geocentrism). This is not some minor problem. It is a show-stopper for people who claim, like you do, that "science is a method."

Science is not a method. If you want to know why, then you need to think about how those theories of why Jupiter moved in complicated loops in the sky was replaced by Copernican theory. Let me give you a clue: it is to do with the quality and simplicity of the theory with respect to natural laws...

But do go ahead and have a try before I explain the answer. Prove to the board that you are no fool.

Here's science by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Ah yes, argumentem via wikipedium. You can use Google. Have a peanut!

Science is a method for error reduction.

Maybe a diagram helps (you did follow that link and read the article, didn't you?)

The models/theories that result from scientific investigation work well enough for the endeavours at the time for which they serve. At some stage, they may need revision or a complete rethink, so we dig deeper and find out what works for the next set of endeavours. Thanks to Copernicus, NASA can more accurately send probes to other planets, now that we have a better idea about their orbital behaviours.

Similarly, we can refine our metaphysical and philosophical models to better achieve more consistent ontologies and finer epistemological frameworks of what reality might be. We should be appreciative of both NASA and the universal consciousness which forms the basis of all the greatness we experience in this existence we share. Kumbaya, I sayeth.

Graham

I am not denying that there are various methods, constituting an ongoing process, that are part of science. The question is whether or not you can sensibly define Science as this ongoing process.

Perhaps you could also try to answer the question I asked Thomas?

The process given in the diagram above does not obviously explain how and why the theories of the motion of planets that existed before the Copernican revolution were eventually replaced with Copernicanism. Let's follow it round from the top.

Observations were made of the motion of Jupiter.
The question was asked "Why does Jupiter move in these arcs and loops?"
A hypothesis was formulated, whereby the motion of Jupiter was described via mathematical laws involving loops within loops (to simplify).
These hypotheses led to predictions about the future motion of Jupiter.
Data was gathered to test the predictions, and it turned out they weren't bad. They weren't perfect either - Jupiter did not always do exactly what was predicted, but they were pretty close, most of the time.
The theories were then continually refined, usually involving the addition of more loops, to try to make them better.

This went on for quite a long time, and what was going on was entirely consistent with the diagram of "the scientific method" you have posted above. But the theories were, as we now know in hindsight, completely wrong, because both the observations and the theories about the motion of the planets were based on another faulty theory that wasn't being considered - that the point of observation was stationary rather than being another planet orbiting the sun.

Eventually this mistake was rectified, and if we want to understand what science really is, then I think we have to consider how and why it was rectified. Which boils down to the question - why did Copernicanism replaced the heliocentric theories of the motion of Jupiter? Was it because it made better predictions regarding observations? Well, actually it didn't. Copernicanism, in its initial form, did manage to predict the motion of Jupiter more accurately. But there were some major problems with the predictions of the motion of Saturn. With hindsight (again) we eventually discovered that these problems were caused by the existence additional planets beyond the orbit of Saturn, but that was not known at the time.

The reason Copernicanist heliocentric theory overturned the old geocentric theories was one of efficiency in terms of reducibility. It was simpler. The maths was much simpler, which effectively means that the reduction to natural laws was more effective. If you change the model so the sun is in the centre and the Earth is another planet then even though the predictive power of the new theory is not much better than the old one, the whole thing just makes more sense in terms of the way it reduces phenomena to simple, consistent, mathematical laws.

This is of key importance to understanding what science really is, and what scientific knowledge is. It is all about natural laws. The goal of science is to explain things in terms of the simplest mathematical laws available, and any process that leads to this result is scientific. The actual details of the processes are not set in stone. New ways of doing science can continually be invented, but there will never be a new goal. It will always be directly linked to natural causality - the search for natural laws to explain things.

Geoff

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Oh boy. Do you actually believe anybody takes you seriously any more? I have posted a lot of detailed information, directly on-topic, challenging your claim that you "know science is a method". All you have managed in response is to post more utter crap, and a link to wikipedia. Other people have engaged with my posts on an intellectual level. You operate at the level of a 10 year old, in a playground. You are a waste of space. The Universe would be better off without you in it.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
The reason Copernicanist heliocentric theory overturned the old geocentric theories was one of efficiency in terms of reducibility. It was simpler. The maths was much simpler, which effectively means that the reduction to natural laws was more effective. If you change the model so the sun is in the centre and the Earth is another planet then even though the predictive power of the new theory is not much better than the old one, the whole thing just makes more sense in terms of the way it reduces phenomena to simple, consistent, mathematical laws.

This is of key importance to understanding what science really is, and what scientific knowledge is. It is all about natural laws. The goal of science is to explain things in terms of the simplest mathematical laws available, and any process that leads to this result is scientific. The actual details of the processes are not set in stone. New ways of doing science can continually be invented, but there will never be a new goal. It will always be directly linked to natural causality - the search for natural laws to explain things.

Along with the additional advantage that we need ONLY resort to natural descriptions. Let's not say 'causality', because we need not talk about causality unless some metaphysician insists on it. Why he does that, is anyone's guess. Along comes gravitation, which is termed 'a law' but it's also a more general description than Copernican or Keplerian models, because it describes the fall of an apple on the earth as well as the motions of planets, and eventually the motions of stars in galaxies and galaxies in clusters. Not only that, but we can now do things like account for the role of gravitation in thunderstorms. We restrict ourselves to natural descriptions because there are no supernatural descriptions. When you try to make a supernatural description, it's by throwing out observation by fiat. You say what has been seen cannot be unseen, but you can't describe the means of seeing what cannot be unseen. It's a garbage assertion, then.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
You think science is "a method", right?

Wrong, I know it is.

Well, then you'll be able to explain what that method is, won't you?

What? Like you've been unable to provide coherent definition of what scientific evidence is?
Like you've been unable to provide a coherent example of another form of evidence?
It was you that made the initial claim UE.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
So, then, what, exactly, is that method?

Does it involve things like observations and theories? If so, which comes first, the observations, or the theories?


I'll give you a clue. Think of two examples: Darwin's theory of evolution, and the attempt to observe and explain the motion of the planets before the Copernican revolution.

In Darwin's case, it looks like lots of observations took place, after which a theory was formulatd.

But now put yourself in the position of an astronomer observing the motion of Jupiter before Copernicus. What you observe is a planet moving in large arcs, with occasional loops. These are accurate observations - there's nothing wrong with the observations themselves. And you come up with a theory to explain how planets can move in arcs, with loops, occasionally stopping in the sky and going backwards for a while.

Looks like something has gone wrong, doesn't it?

Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?

Is there are a point in your incoherent rambling and if so; care to phrase is it in a legible way, instead of beating around the bush?

Oh dear Thomas? Did you struggle to understand my very clear explanation of the reasons why science can't be defined as a method? Because what I posted was neither incoherent, nor was it rambling.

Once again with the blind countefactual assertions. Not to mention more personalised trolling.

UndercoverElephant wrote: It was in fact the precise reason why the philosophers of science (you know...those people who actually tried to defend the idea that science is method, rather than just declaring that they "know" it to be so, having done no research or work on that topic) ended up rejecting the idea that science could be defined as a method.

And yet another blind assertion, this time presented as part of an appeal to authority fallacy.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Let me make it even simpler for you (not that I hold out much hope that you'll be able to understand it).

You really need to stuff the condscending bullshit UE. Not only is entirely unwarranted, given your repeated failure to defend your own claims, it's inflammatory and contravenes the FUA.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Science can't be defined as a method because that theory of what science is suffers from "chicken and egg" problem involving theories and observations.

So you assert but fail to demonstrate it's a problem.
It's not a true dichotomy UE.

UndercoverElephant wrote: In short, you can't come up with a theory unless you've already made observations, but you can't make observations of a quality good enough for science unless they are made within the framework of existing theories.

So?
You can do both.
You can make observations and then hypothesize and you can hypothesize based on current knowledge and then make observation to see if your prediction come true.

UndercoverElephant wrote: In the language of philosophy of science, observations tend to be "theory-laden", and something the theories they are laden with turn out to be wrong (e.g. geocentrism). This is not some minor problem. It is a show-stopper for people who claim, like you do, that "science is a method."

That's a complete non-sequitur UE.
One of the priniciples of the scientific method, is falsification.
If your theoretic predictions or assumptions cannot be falsified, it does not a valid theory.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Science is not a method.

Still a counterfactual blind assertion, despite the additional nonsense and non-sequiturs offered in this post.
Tell me, where's your Nobel prize for proving that all scientists around the world are wrong and don't know what they're on about?

UndercoverElephant wrote: If you want to know why, then you need to think about how those theories of why Jupiter moved in complicated loops in the sky was replaced by Copernican theory. Let me give you a clue: it is to do with the quality and simplicity of the theory with respect to natural laws...

But do go ahead and have a try before I explain the answer. Prove to the board that you are no fool.

I've no interest in engaging you in your personalised bile spewing.
More-over you're still avoiding your own burden of proof UE.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Here's science by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Ah yes, argumentem via wikipedium. You can use Google. Have a peanut!

Failure to address the article has been noted.

Once again UE, you offer nothing but vacuous nonsense, whether it be blind assertions or blind dismissal, coupled with continued personalised invective.

Once again you fail to address the posts I linked to you, that actually address the OP which you kept asserting to be so concerned about.

Once again you completely fail to carry your own burden of proof.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Oh boy. Do you actually believe anybody takes you seriously any more?

I don't know, I won't presume to speak for other people, unlike you.
I will keep pointing out this hypocricy as long as you fail to address it in any meaningful way.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I have posted a lot of detailed information

Blind assertions and non-sequiturs do not constitute detailed information UE.

UndercoverElephant wrote:directly on-topic,

Correction directly on a tangeally related topic.
A topic which you started by claiming there's such a thing as scientific evidence.
A claim which you continue to refuse to defend, instead trying to dodge your burden of proof by exclusively focussing on mine.

UndercoverElephant wrote: challenging your claim that you "know science is a method".

It's not just mine, it's the basis of all scientific research.

UndercoverElephant wrote: All you have managed in response is to post more utter crap,

Hello pot, have you met kettle?

UndercoverElephant wrote: and a link to wikipedia.

Which you completely failed to address.

UndercoverElephant wrote: Other people have engaged with my posts on an intellectual level. You operate at the level of a 10 year old, in a playground. You are a waste of space. The Universe would be better off without you in it.

Aaand more personalised invective displaying a fantastical version of this thread's history.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Oh boy. Do you actually believe anybody takes you seriously any more? I have posted a lot of detailed information, directly on-topic, challenging your claim that you "know science is a method". All you have managed in response is to post more utter crap, and a link to wikipedia. Other people have engaged with my posts on an intellectual level. You operate at the level of a 10 year old, in a playground. You are a waste of space. The Universe would be better off without you in it.

Sounds a little bit like you are shoe-horning for your belief laden purpose again. What causes black people? Give me the sciency natural laws on that one.

What is Science???
What is Consciousness???

What kind of soundtrack do we need here?

Thomas Eshuis

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. You continually complain about other people not addressing your points, but when somebody does address your points, in detail, all you can manage in response is a page full of unsubtantiated, unjustified, one-line nitpicking. You make no attempt whatsoever to engage in meaningful debate. How you can accuse other people of "failing to address what has been posted" is beyond me.

That is it. I have had enough of even bothering to read your posts. Your contributions to this discussion are so unbelievably pathetic that reading your posts, and being tempted to respond to the inane crap they contain, is a bad idea.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Oh boy. Do you actually believe anybody takes you seriously any more? I have posted a lot of detailed information, directly on-topic, challenging your claim that you "know science is a method". All you have managed in response is to post more utter crap, and a link to wikipedia. Other people have engaged with my posts on an intellectual level. You operate at the level of a 10 year old, in a playground. You are a waste of space. The Universe would be better off without you in it.

Sounds a little bit like you are shoe-horning for your belief laden purpose again. What causes black people? Give me the sciency natural laws on that one.

"What causes black people" is not a scientifically coherent question. Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer.

So given a simple lego model universe with minimal natural laws, and given the dancing gummy bear SN-event, I have some questions about the supernatural for UE.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I will point out again, that despite assertions to the contrary and repeated hypocritical accusations, UE keeps responding not to the on topic posts provided to him with links, but rather to the tangeally related issues.

Oh boy. Do you actually believe anybody takes you seriously any more? I have posted a lot of detailed information, directly on-topic, challenging your claim that you "know science is a method". All you have managed in response is to post more utter crap, and a link to wikipedia. Other people have engaged with my posts on an intellectual level. You operate at the level of a 10 year old, in a playground. You are a waste of space. The Universe would be better off without you in it.

Sounds a little bit like you are shoe-horning for your belief laden purpose again. What causes black people? Give me the sciency natural laws on that one.

"What causes black people" is not a scientifically coherent question. Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer.

Very good. Then you can see that 'what is science' and 'what is consciousness' are the same right?