|
 DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
 Re: Scientism Debunked  [Re: teknix]  1
#15914658 - 03/07/12 04:04 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Every scientific theory has assumptions. They are normally called 'axioms' or 'postulates'. They are assumed and not proved and are a big reason why every scientific theory is tentative and none is taken to be fact.
The assumption you wrote is not necessary for any scientific theory as far as I know.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914668 - 03/07/12 04:06 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The axioms and postulates are really just hypothesis or educated guesses, not so much assumptions, imo. I guess it probably boils down to the definition of assumption.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914677 - 03/07/12 04:09 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Is it assumed to be possible or assumed to be truth? Assuming an absolute truth is not really my bag of worms, so I'm open to suggestions.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914682 - 03/07/12 04:11 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Is it assumed to be possible or assumed to be truth?
Neither. Postulates and axioms assumed for the sake of constructing the scientific theory.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914687 - 03/07/12 04:12 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Rofl. g1.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914698 - 03/07/12 04:14 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So now we can assume that it assumes 2 things at least ^.~ It also elicits a nice perspectual* shift.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914705 - 03/07/12 04:15 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No. Each scientific theory has a different set and a different amount of assumptions. The less the better as long as you don't sacrifice predicative and descriptive ability.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914708 - 03/07/12 04:17 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Assumptions, yet not based in any sort of absolute truth?
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914717 - 03/07/12 04:19 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Assumptions, yet not based in any sort of absolute truth?
By definition they cannot be, they are assumed. The moment they are based in something else they are not longer assumed and are no longer assumptions.
An assumption has no basis, by definition. In practice you may substantiate scientific assumptions with your own opinions or faith, but that is outside of the scientific paradigm.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914723 - 03/07/12 04:20 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Exactly, so science is not actually assuming anything by this definition:
IE: Assumption - Assuming something to be true. (absolutely)
Edited by teknix (03/07/12 08:12 PM)
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914739 - 03/07/12 04:22 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I dont understand. When you use the term 'science' instead of 'scientific theory', 'scientist' or 'scientific method' its confusing.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914740 - 03/07/12 04:22 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
usulpsychonaut said:
Science evolves into spirituality and spirituality evolves into science simultaneously. Zombies who perpetuate brain death are the ruling/controlling class, they have their own agendas but I am not stupid enough to pay any mind to their shit, non of it makes any sense. Spirituality is awesome, but their are people who have been trying to spiritually heal themselves for the past 20years yet they remain sick...
Greetings, 
from which planet do you hail?
This is more loaded language and poor form for a philosophy forum imo.
Your opinions noted. 
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914754 - 03/07/12 04:24 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
I dont understand. When you use the term 'science' instead of 'scientific theory', 'scientist' or 'scientific method' its confusing.
Well, which wouldn't it apply to? Deduce. Induce.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914777 - 03/07/12 04:27 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Wouldn't what apply to?
The assumption you posted that I disagree with? I applies to none of them necessarily. A fraction of scientists, as well as non-scientists probably do make that assumption.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: DieCommie]
#15914784 - 03/07/12 04:29 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That Science as a broad term, does not assume anything absolute.
(at the same time this sentence is subject to impermanence)
Scientific method or scientific theory both seem applicable. Scientific Process: I'm always looking for better ways to do things than are already pre-existing because of that. I mean there are the ways that have been proven to work, yet there is not assumption here that these are the best procedures, only that they have been shown to work.
Edited by teknix (03/07/12 04:35 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15914844 - 03/07/12 04:39 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
IE:
Is there anything about science in a broad and general term that is not subject to change upon contradicting evidence?
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15915023 - 03/07/12 05:17 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
saintphotios said:
I think consciousness is the best example.
Science can't, even in theory, address consciousness. It can address perception -- which is really just receiving sense data. But the subjective experience of perception that we call consciousness is always subjective.
So what?
In this forum I hear people suggest this word somehow denotes useless data or something. Who cares if the data is subjective?
How is perception not a measure of conciousness? We derive all data from perception anyways, so its hard to see how you use this as something related to consciousness particularly.
Quote:
Icelander said:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/cat_brain_emotions.html
Scientists study emotions all the time.
Yeah, I agree.
These "science can't address x" where x is some known phenomena is pretty much always wrong, and never been substantiated to my knowledge, yet people continue to make the claim. Most of the criticisms of science seem to be just nonsense in this way.
As you rightly note, emotions can be studied easily. Ask someone what their mood is: bingo, you just studied emotions. Its not hard. It seems people have some weird idea that you can't use the normal means we learn about he world to do science- like you need some special apparatus or something.
Quote:
teknix said:
IE:
Is there anything about science in a broad and general term that is not subject to change upon contradicting evidence?
The grammer of this question doesn't really make sense, ie. "science in a broad and general term" is not a concept I'm familiar with or can understand.
Science, as diecommie pointed out, is a practice, a methodology (sometimes considered the body of work using that method). As the method is wholly concerned with describing the observations, it does not require any unchangable presumptions to work.
As diecommie said, presumptions are simply employed when formulating theory, hypothesises, to enable the practical application of empiricle data.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: johnm214]
#15915037 - 03/07/12 05:20 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
dp.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: johnm214]
#15915042 - 03/07/12 05:21 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
The grammer of this question doesn't really make sense, ie. "science in a broad and general term" is not a concept I'm familiar with or can understand.
Science, as diecommie pointed out, is a practice, a methodology (sometimes considered the body of work using that method). As the method is wholly concerned with describing the observations, it does not require any unchangable presumptions to work.
As diecommie said, presumptions are simply employed when formulating theory, hypothesises, to enable the practical application of empiricle data.
*Empirical?
Sure, apply assume to any aspect of science with the definition in the original IE. The one I previously supplied when comparing definitions of assume.
You are parroting diecommies definition of assume. Before the red herring goes too far off base, the discussion was already found to be in agreement with that context and definition.
Trying to apply something to a broader scope in terms of science is much more difficult imo. Definitions are required to be more concise, do you care to share any altering perspectives from the definition other than what has already been covered?
Edited by teknix (03/07/12 05:30 PM)
|
 saintphotios
Stranger
Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: Scientism Debunked [Re: teknix]
#15915645 - 03/07/12 06:55 PM (12 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The point of science describing and predicting what we observe. Is as much as describing and predicting is understanding, so be it. In as much as observations are indicative of the universe, so be it. But there is no need to push any assumptions like the one you claimed.
This sounds like something philosophy students say when faced with epistemic problems of materialism. In reality, it doesn't work that way. When scientists form a theory, it isn't some abstract idea that merely parallels our observation. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution, they are not talking about something we merely observe. They are saying that, in reality, we actually physically went through all these physical evolutionary changes.
You're trying to paint scientists as skeptics and idealists, and we both know that simply isn't true. They don't say that we observe the stars. They say, yeah dude, they're out there alright... and here's what they're doing. Just because calling them theories allows us to refine them with further knowledge doesn't mean we're not making ontological claims. I've never met a scientist with the philosophical outlook you're putting forth. It's a cop-out.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
hTx
1 2 all )
Ped
Adamist
clam_dude
quinn
DividedQuantum
Sclorch
CerebralFlower