Ze forum

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Zeke, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me get this straight:

    -You cant observe if this specific tree makes a sound when it falls.

    -Your other/previous observations tell you that its most likley that the tree makes a sound when it falls.

    -Because you couldnt observe the specific tree your assumption that it made a sound is purely based on experience.

    -The problem is you cant be sure that this specific tree made a sound because maybee you observed only the trees in the world that make sounds. It doesnt proof that every tree makes a sound its only most likley.

    -So you dont have any proof that the tree made a sound.


    This is a very simple demonstration how science works but I dont want to torture me and write a more specific explaination in a foreign language.

    Science is basicaly about agreements on situations that most likley accourr because you wont have ever 100% proof of something. Oh and thats a good thing because it opens the system to change.

    So a scientist would never say the tree makes a sound. He would say its most likley that the tree makes a sound and thats a important difference.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  2. Zeke

    Zeke Banned

    Messages:
    2,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sigh... havnt i told you all along that sound doesnt just "dissapear" without leaving a trace?

    iow: you could check if it actually happend, if enough data was obtained of the enviroment from where the sound was emitted. (this is beyond our current tech though)

    If however there is no data what so ever of the tree making a sound then the obvious answear is "dunno".

    and ofcourse... if you mean if anything happend to a absolute certainty... then for granted almost every question is answeared with dunno, since absolute certainty is unobtainable for most things.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  3. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    since someone said that this would be ethics, no it isnt, its epistemology some of you guys really should read into that, its pathetic to read your responses ...
     
  4. -=]Kane[=-

    -=]Kane[=- Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would rather eat a science book, literally. It has more use to know how to solve puzzles then how to make puzzles which can't be solved, ya know? :D
    That said, philosophy and ethics is all the same to me. (Yes, there is a difference, one askes what would happen if there's no god around and the other one askes what would happen if there's no human around when the tree falls :D:p)
     
  5. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you think a science book is something "to solve puzzles" than you threat science like a religion.
     
  6. -=]Kane[=-

    -=]Kane[=- Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I lol'd ... I never heared that religion solved energy problems, water pollution problems, global warming problems, etc ...
    but if science is a religion, then religion did indeed solve all these puzzles!
    Therefor only religion can rescue us, right mayama?

    Also I didn't say the book itself solves puzzles, but by reading them you know how to solve puzzles.
    By puzzels I mean problems, REAL LIFE problems, without solving them we would still dwell in caves (Hell, we wouldn't even have books, paradoxon?).
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  7. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Science does not "solve puzzles" aka offer solutions. Religion offers solutions and thats why religion is authoritarian and absolut and thats not a good thing.
     
  9. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. MooJuiceThaHater

    MooJuiceThaHater Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thread seriousness is too high.
     
  11. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link to the meme maker please
     
  12. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More like people are trying to take a philosophical debate and apply it to religion.
    God damn retards.
     
  14. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Come at me bro.
     
  16. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    just to be fair, science created a lot of this problems - not implying that religion would have done any better ...
    also neither of these "puzzles" are even close to be solved, but this seems more like a psychological/sociological/philosophical/political problem then a technical one, i have to admit :D

    btw, to jump right into this discussion. im still agnostic/ignostic and think that atheism is just inverted theism. in the end everything is only believe (epistemology) final prove is impossible. the current state of physics implies that all our laws of nature originated a plank second after what we call big bang - a thing we have no fucking clue what it could possibly have been ...

    since i say its "only believing", some might think i try to vilify (? = dict) science/scientific archievements, but this couldnt be more wrong. the scientific method is the best we currently got. its dynamic nature and the requirement for falsibility is what makes it superior to other believes ...

    god isnt falsifiable (what god? well ill use the christian one, i know it best, though i dont know it in any way - thus ignosticism) by definition. its almight, allpowerful, it could just make itself unfalsifiable.

    god is a paradox. idk, maybe its the mother (or father?) of all paradoxes?
     
  18. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. -=]Kane[=-

    -=]Kane[=- Member

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah like I said, I would rather read a science book and solve real problems, then read a philosophy book and ask stuff I cannot solve, like the beginning of everything. I would rather solve a "dead tomorow, what do today" problem, it has more substance ... even when we created these problems ourself, they are still EXISTING as a FACT so we have to take care of them. If it's our society not wanting to pay enought, we will have to apply science to the forehead and find a cheaper solution. Or brainwash ppl to worship the great catalyst converter/w/e-god and spend money on it.
    Tbh, no 5 min and there's already a page of responses :o
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2011
  20. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page