• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mathematical truths v. scientific truths (knowledge of)

4321lynx said:
Speakpigeon said:
4321lynx said:
the science he believes he knows is wrong (or he knows that he believes is wrong), the science he at one stage calls non-existent in "reality", created and "believed-in" by "non-existent" men in that same "reality".
Click to expand...

???

What's seriously wrong is you (and of course Steve, who is always seriously wrong, whatever he says).

Please, quote me saying "I know science is wrong" as you claim I do.

Please, quote me saying something as stupid as "science is non-existent in reality".

You are just delirious, my dear. You should stop abusing the hard stuff.
EB
Click to expand...

You said:

There is no spacetime as such. These things are what the model uses to represent the world. The model doesn't even represent. Representation is itself a technical relation between different parts of the model, which, therefore, is not a model. Think of Plato's shadows on the wall of the cave. But we're not the men looking at the shadows. We are the shadows. If we know anything, then we are shadows among shadows knowing shadows among shadows. And if we know anything in this sense, then, sure, we know something and we know that something through and through. But, the real world outside hat the shadows are the shadows of?
Click to expand...

...no spacetime as such
Click to expand...

equals no reality or no knowledgeable reality in my book/

You deny that partial knowledge is knowledge at all just because it needs to be updated from time to time, and very frequently updated at this point in the nonexistent spacetime "as such".. It seems you think it is all shadows of shadows of shadows. In other words "it is turtles all the way down", nonexistent. Then we can argue around the weasel words "as such", "shadows", "model". etc etc.

All great fun but signifying nothing - pure philosophy showing its own limitations and for some reason being proud of that.
Click to expand...

LOL, in other words you claimed I said something to the effect that I would know that science is wrong but then you can't find any quote of me to justify your claim.

This suggests several possibilities...

Maybe you just don't understand English well enough. You wouldn't be the only one. Many people here and there seem to have a serious problem in this department, for example Steve and a few others.

Or maybe you understand English well enough but you are so dogmatic that it makes you stupid. Blinkers. Again, many people here seem to have a serious problem in this department, for example FDI and a few others.

Or maybe you understand English and you not so dogmatic that it would makes you stupid but then you have to be just wilfully misrepresenting my views, like so many other upstanding posters here and there seems to do most of the time.

Because you can't justify your claim then you reach for some cheap substitute. You choose to misrepresent what I say by interpreting it according to the rules of "your book".

I didn't say "science is wrong", but you think that saying that spacetime doesn't exist as such is equivalent.

No, in my book it's not the same thing and "your book" is irrelevant here.

You claimed I said "science is wrong". You can't quote me saying that. Whatever your stupid interpretation of what I said is, that doesn't make your stupid claim true.

So, YOU ARE WRONG. 4321lynx IS WRONG.

Now, you can quote me.
EB
 
fast said:
Speakpigeon said:
4321lynx said:
the science he believes he knows is wrong (or he knows that he believes is wrong), the science he at one stage calls non-existent in "reality", created and "believed-in" by "non-existent" men in that same "reality".
Click to expand...

???

What's seriously wrong is you (and of course Steve, who is always seriously wrong, whatever he says).

Please, quote me saying "I know science is wrong" as you claim I do.

Please, quote me saying something as stupid as "science is non-existent in reality".

You are just delirious, my dear. You should stop abusing the hard stuff.
EB
Click to expand...
For the record, when I first noticed that, my first reaction was to think you never said such a thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

What you say makes 4321lynx wrong.

Yes,I agree. 4321lynx IS WRONG. :D
EB
 
Across nay threads EB claims that for instance 'math is based on assumptions' therefore on shaky ground, no logical foundations. Hence the general term he uses, 'mathematical logic', without ever defining it precisely. And his recent rant of estimates of the age of the universe.

In the battle of whirs and logic EB is unarmed.
 
4321lynx said:
Speakpigeon said:
fast said:
For the record, when I first noticed that, my first reaction was to think you never said such a thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

What you say makes 4321lynx wrong.

Yes,I agree. 4321lynx IS WRONG. :D
EB
Click to expand...

Surely you mean you believe that you know that you believe he's wrong?

You may be right.
Click to expand...

Look here:

4321lynx said:
steve_bank said:
.

EB thinks it is all whimsical assumption, which it is not. The irony is all the science his life depends on that he does not understand. Computers, electric power generation, internet, cell phones,car engines and all the rest.

The computer processor based in quantum mechanics. The cell phone base in electromagnetics.
Click to expand...

And the irony is greater as he lives in France where most of the power he uses is produced by nuclear power stations which essentially are controlled and slowed-up atomic bombs, produced by the science he believes he knows is wrong (or he knows that he believes is wrong), the science he at one stage calls non-existent in "reality", created and "believed-in" by "non-existent" men in that same "reality".
Click to expand...

This says you're wrong.
EB
 
Kissing in movies ranges from four lips touching to eating face and obvious tongue thrusting in current movies when it's obvious such evolved since early film as more explicit sex became acceptable in public media. So why not nihilistic 'ideas' of reality being deep, meaningful as original philosophical concepts as seen by the public even though such is vestigial philosophy to those who study philosophy.

I think we just finished a topic where falsification has become less of a thing now that Popper acknowledges he's had his lunch handed to him while those who read only philosophical analysis of scientific thinking still persist in shoveling that shit simply because they haven't got off the cause and effect bandwagon of scientism. Sometimes -sisms need to be sworn at. Letting it dangle.
 
skepticalbip said:
I don't know why but I am still always amazed that there are still people that apparently believe that nihilistic 'ideas' of reality are deep, meaningful, and original philosophical concepts.
Click to expand...

Always the expert on the snide comment.
EB
 
fromderinside said:
Kissing in movies ranges from four lips touching to eating face and obvious tongue thrusting in current movies when it's obvious such evolved since early film as more explicit sex became acceptable in public media. So why not nihilistic 'ideas' of reality being deep, meaningful as original philosophical concepts as seen by the public even though such is vestigial philosophy to those who study philosophy.

I think we just finished a topic where falsification has become less of a thing now that Popper acknowledges he's had his lunch handed to him while those who read only philosophical analysis of scientific thinking still persist in shoveling that shit simply because they haven't got off the cause and effect bandwagon of scientism. Sometimes -sisms need to be sworn at. Letting it dangle.
Click to expand...

Friends, Romans, and countrymen...we come to bury Popper not praise him.

I found Popper's book Objective Knowledge An Evolutionary approach to generally match my experience.

Scientific truth is as much a subjective social process as an empirical experimental process. If you rejct testability then creationism becomes science.

I go by Popper, the only reasonable objective truth is an experiment. As discussion centered on the experiment widens and propagates it becomes increasingly subjective. QM many worlds. Philosophical -isms speculating on experiment.
 
steve_bank said:
fromderinside said:
Kissing in movies ranges from four lips touching to eating face and obvious tongue thrusting in current movies when it's obvious such evolved since early film as more explicit sex became acceptable in public media. So why not nihilistic 'ideas' of reality being deep, meaningful as original philosophical concepts as seen by the public even though such is vestigial philosophy to those who study philosophy.

I think we just finished a topic where falsification has become less of a thing now that Popper acknowledges he's had his lunch handed to him while those who read only philosophical analysis of scientific thinking still persist in shoveling that shit simply because they haven't got off the cause and effect bandwagon of scientism. Sometimes -sisms need to be sworn at. Letting it dangle.
Click to expand...

Friends, Romans, and countrymen...we come to bury Popper not praise him.

I found Popper's book Objective Knowledge An Evolutionary approach to generally match my experience.

Scientific truth is as much a subjective social process as an empirical experimental process. If you reject testability then creationism becomes science.

I go by Popper, the only reasonable objective truth is an experiment. As discussion centered on the experiment widens and propagates it becomes increasingly subjective. QM many worlds. Philosophical -isms speculating on experiment.
Click to expand...

finding, matching experience are stuff of hearsay.
 
Sounds like somebody is cranky from a touch of constipation. A fiber supplement might improve the disposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom