There is no way for a round Earth to Exist. (Science & Philosophy)

You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.

I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Xerox on April 22, 2010, 07:42:55 PM

You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.

I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

It does for the people here.

Quote from: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 03:54:07 PM

Quote from: Xerox on April 22, 2010, 07:42:55 PM

You could take this skepticism and apply it to anything, not just Earth.  The title of the thread specifically stated that there was no way for a round Earth to exist.  Since this is a flat Earth site, I would assume this means that if it can't be round, it's flat.

I don't see how you can make that assumption.  The topic of this forum hardly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

It does for the people here.

While that may have been what the OP believes, it certainly wasn't the argument (if it can be called that) that he made. 

Quote from: John Davis on April 22, 2010, 07:38:19 PM

Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  

The search for knowledge, especially outside or beyond of what is taught, is the first step to seeing the truth of the Earth - or really anything.  I myself first came to be a flatty through a mystical experience, something that at first I was very at odds with.

The topic of the post isn't always the subject.

If we question what is taught, then this leads to greater understanding of the faults that lead to issues in so called "Science."  Thats what I took most out of his post.

Obviously there is no proof in it of a flat or round earth, but it starts us on a path.   We must question the foundations of Science.  Sure, so far its a useful tool, but that could be happenstance, and there is nothing to suggest there is no greater tool that would arise form counter-intuitive methodologies or beliefs.

Thats what I take from the OP, though obviously he takes it further, supposedly with reasons we are yet to know.

I have said this before, but I will repeat it again.

Many of us are skeptics (in general). But skepticism is not disbelief of everything until you obtain absolute proof. There are scales of certainty and granting "acceptance" of theories (scientific theories being the explanatory models that a consensus of the world's experts agree best fit the experimental evidence...and knowing that theories will continue to be tested and refined). Skepticism is a weighing the available evidence (critical thinking) and putting your best foot forward. However, with hyper-skepticism, you'll be stuck forever on the question of whether reality exists or not.

I have said this before, but I will repeat it again.

Many of us are skeptics (in general). But skepticism is not disbelief of everything until you obtain absolute proof. There are scales of certainty and granting "acceptance" of theories (scientific theories being the explanatory models that a consensus of the world's experts agree best fit the experimental evidence...and knowing that theories will continue to be tested and refined). Skepticism is a weighing the available evidence (critical thinking) and putting your best foot forward. However, with hyper-skepticism, you'll be stuck forever on the question of whether reality exists or not.

Of course.  I never said otherwise.  I widely hold that there is no such thing as "proof" in relation to reality.

However, I will point out there is also blindly following a belief system with no skepticism or mind to why the results matter, how they matter, or the basis of their validity etc.  

Even if said belief is a useful tool, one should know why and how to use it properly.  This blind faith may be fine for those "scientists" (if they can be called that!) that are simply following a trade rather than following a search, but for those who know that science is the pursuit of knowledge in the face of both ignorance and the so-called experts a simple peasant life should not suffice.  Even worse, those that do Search are at a handicap due to the barrage of the proclaimed truths.

Science is a search for truth, be it only physical.  To ignore this is folly.  

However, I will point out there is also blindly following a belief system with no skepticism or mind to why the results matter, how they matter, or the basis of their validity etc. 

I agree that there is such a thing as healthy skepticism, but how much skepticism is too much skepticism?  At what point does skepticism become an irrational refusal to even consider the evidence?

Now, admittedly out of topic,

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.

Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.

If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.

Quote from: trig on April 23, 2010, 11:48:47 AM

Now, admittedly out of topic,

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.

Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.

If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.

The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy. Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.

You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?

PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:03:17 PM

Quote from: trig on April 23, 2010, 11:48:47 AM

Now, admittedly out of topic,

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:54:25 AM

And why is he/she thinking about those models, experiments, observations and theories? Because he/she believes that by using the scientific method knowledge can be gained. That is an epistemological stance, and as such, the scientific method is by nature a philosophical system.


An excellent example of how science is at heart philosophical can be seen in the debates around the predictive power of string theory, which many beleive is essentially untestable and as such not scientific in nature. Their argument is that science at heart empiricist, so if it is practiaclly impossible to find empirical data to support string theory, the theory should not be considered scientific. That is an epistemological and hence philosophical debate, and shows precisely why philosophy and science are inextricably linked.

Lord Wilmore is reinforcing my claim: the Scientific Method is pretty much the whole intersection between science and philosophy these days. Whether you want to be a scientist with some philosophical background or a scientist who just uses the scientific method because it works in practice, his published results do not change depending on any philosophical stance other than the scientific method.

Whether the untestable physical models like String Theory or Multiverses is part of the discipline of Physics or Mathematics is debatable, But you are only strengthening my position that when we are no longer talking scientific method we are leaving science behind.

The realm of mathematics is the best place to check the validity of untestable physical theories and even in that context the philosophical concepts of epistemology, oneness, etc., etc. are almost irrelevant. The only relevant issues are whether the theory is internally consistent (no mathematical paradoxes, for example) and whether it really is untestable.

If "whether it really is untestable" is a relevant issue, then you're still in the realm of philosophy. The only reason that discussion is happening is because of the empirical nature of science. If science and the scientific method were not based on certain philosophical principles, there would be no need for debate in the first place.


For example, if all the scientific method demanded were that a theory be internally consistent, theories like sting theory would be accepted as scientific, no questions asked. However, because of the scientific method's epistemological emphasis on empirical data, these theories are not accepted by everyone as scientific. The debate arises out of the philosophical nature of science and the scientific method, not because having left the realm of science, we then enter the realm of philosophy. If science were not underpinned by philosophical principles, no debate would occur at all.

The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy. Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.

You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?

Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.

On the subject of the OP I don't think he realizes how deep his observation goes, not only does 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop in certain circumstances.

But 2 slices of bread + 1 slice of chesse + 1 spoonfull of pickle (itself made up of 5ml of pickle) = 1 awesome sandwhich. 2 + 1 + 1 = 1 but cut it into squares and it equals 4 sandshiches 1/4 = 4. Make 4 sandwhiches and by the time you've finished preparing the last one you've probably eaten 2 squares from your original sandwhich 4*4 = 14

30 pupils + 1 teacher = 1 class but also so 30 + 1 = 1

30 puplis + 1 teachre = 30 children so 30 + 1 = 30

1 stupid thread + 1 ridiculous forum = 5 minutes of laughter.

Oh my god maths is broken, oh brave new flat world be gentle on me please.

On the subject of the OP I don't think he realizes how deep his observation goes, not only does 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop in certain circumstances.

But 2 slices of bread + 1 slice of chesse + 1 spoonfull of pickle (itself made up of 5ml of pickle) = 1 awesome sandwhich. 2 + 1 + 1 = 1 but cut it into squares and it equals 4 sandshiches 1/4 = 4. Make 4 sandwhiches and by the time you've finished preparing the last one you've probably eaten 2 squares from your original sandwhich 4*4 = 14

30 pupils + 1 teacher = 1 class but also so 30 + 1 = 1

30 puplis + 1 teachre = 30 children so 30 + 1 = 30

1 stupid thread + 1 ridiculous forum = 5 minutes of laughter.

Oh my god maths is broken, oh brave new flat world be gentle on me please.

Gentlemen, I present the most sensible comment in this thread so far.

PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?

At NKU, philosophy is reserved for those who elect to take it or those who have an urge to stroke their own ego with all the "knowledge" they will obtain from it.

Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.

Your lack of reading skills are amazing even myself. Most university students are required to do foundations of mathematics courses. The question is about philosophy courses.

And the result of whether a theoretical model permits the detection of a certain phenomenon or not is a theorem, not an epistemological argument, not an ontological reasoning. Mathematicians and theoretical physics researchers combine efforts, but the work is all mathematics since there is no room for experimentation.

You have been unable to contribute anything except your repeated claim that physics is a subset of philosophy, and repeating a claim does not make it true. I assume you have nothing else to say, so I am concluding my participation on the thread.

Quote from: trig on April 23, 2010, 08:15:39 PM

PS. Any luck finding those universities with required courses on philosophy for mathematicians, engineers or scientists?

At NKU, philosophy is reserved for those who elect to take it or those who have an urge to stroke their own ego with all the "knowledge" they will obtain from it.

I took Philosophy of Technology at Suny New Paltz.  I enjoyed it simply because it was "read and debate". 

Logic and philisophy should be required, especially based on the some of the arguments around here.

Hey guys, I just noticed something! You know how when you're looking at rain, and one raindrop hits another, they turn into one raindrop! This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there is no way for a flat Earth to exist!

Quote from: John Davis on April 23, 2010, 11:00:36 PM

Whether a theory is testable or not does not fall within the realm of mathematics even if you use mathematics as a tool to determine said testability.  

And yes, I had to take a foundations of mathematics course.  Its pretty common for them to be required actually.  Not that it has any relevance what so ever.

Your lack of reading skills are amazing even myself. Most university students are required to do foundations of mathematics courses. The question is about philosophy courses.

And the result of whether a theoretical model permits the detection of a certain phenomenon or not is a theorem, not an epistemological argument, not an ontological reasoning. Mathematicians and theoretical physics researchers combine efforts, but the work is all mathematics since there is no room for experimentation.

You have been unable to contribute anything except your repeated claim that physics is a subset of philosophy, and repeating a claim does not make it true. I assume you have nothing else to say, so I am concluding my participation on the thread.

I gave up trying to reason with you.  You are obviously prejudiced against the word philosophy probably because you think of yourself as the next Feynman.  I could bring up more examples of philosophy leading to scientific discovery, or more reasons why you are wrong, but it would fall on deaf ears and my concerns would continue to remain unanswered - as I stated when I withdrew from the conversation earlier.  I simply returned to answer a question you asked out of courtesy.  Go on and continue to refuse to back up any of your statements.  If I didn't know better I'd say you were a Christian Literalist.  As I said earlier, you are set in your views and you are welcome to continue to be an ignorant tradesman.  

Also, Foundations of mathematics is philosophy. But then again, as I stated to no refutation, so is mathematics.  I also had to take an ethics course, another fairly common requirement also in the realm of philosophy.

The question of whether a theory is testable or not is one of mathematics, not philosophy.

What the hell are you talking about? It is impossible to gain empirical data from mathematics. Besides, we are not talking about the question, we are talking about the demand. Scientists demand that a theory be testable if it is to be considered scientific. This is done for epistemological reasons related to the empirical nature of science. To state otherwise is to openly flaunt your ignorance of science and philosophy, so I suggest you have a long hard think about this before saying anything so absurd again.

Since you are by far too poorly prepared to understand String Theory, lets take a simpler example: suppose there are subatomic particles with mass that have a speed of 2c. Those are the tachyon particles with which scifi movies play so much. Whether we can find a way to detect those tachyons or not depends on the mathematical definition of a theoretical sensing method, (possibly followed by the construction of a real sensor), not on the epistemological or realistic or ontological study of tachyons.

Yes, but scientists wouldn't care if the theory were testable if were not for the philosophical ideas on which science is based. The demand that a theory be testable is entirely scientific in nature.

You are still proving for me my assertion that the scientific method is the only current relationship between science and philosophy, and yet keep trying to hold on to your misconception of science as a subset of philosophy. Are you going to show any additional relationship between them anytime soon?

Why do we need to show any additional relationship? The scientific method is the essence of science as a field, and in fact defines it. However, since you ask, anyone who gave it more than 6 seconds of arrogant, presumptuous thought would realise that ethics has an enormous influence on modern science, and that what is considered science is constantly constrained and defined by ethical considerations and standards (and by ethical I don't just mean religious).

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 24, 2010, 04:10:04 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

Wilmore will never understand what you are talking about. Even if he does, he'll dodge what you say, and share more of his gibberish hypothesis that can never EVER be tested by anyone. He would fit to be one of those people who starts their own religion; surely he could get a couple of gullible victims to join his doctrine.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 24, 2010, 04:10:04 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

What does any of this have to do with the philosophical nature of science? I don't see the slightest connection, and frankly I feel you're creating tangential and essentially semantic arguments largely as a distraction. The distinction between the theoretically testable and the practically testable is totally beside the point. Ultimately, for a theory to be regarded as 'true' (for want of a better word), there must be empirical data supporting it, and that is because scienceis at heart empirical. The debate over string theory, whatever your position, is evidence not only that science is philosophical in nature, but that real physicists are very much aware of that fact.

Quote from: trig on April 26, 2010, 03:29:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 24, 2010, 04:10:04 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

What does any of this have to do with the philosophical nature of science? I don't see the slightest connection, and frankly I feel you're creating tangential and essentially semantic arguments largely as a distraction. The distinction between the theoretically testable and the practically testable is totally beside the point. Ultimately, for a theory to be regarded as 'true' (for want of a better word), there must be empirical data supporting it, and that is because scienceis at heart empirical. The debate over string theory, whatever your position, is evidence not only that science is philosophical in nature, but that real physicists are very much aware of that fact.

Finally, you are understanding something! There is almost no relationship between philosophy and science. The tangential you see is science breaking away from philosophy, leaving almost no philosophical arguments to make about science! While there is a common starting point for both disciplines, the target of both disciplines is currently different in almost every case. While a scientist looks for valid, repeatable predictions based on models, philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability. While mathematics looks for axioms and theorems, philosophy rarely touches mathematical axioms.

Finally, you are understanding something! There is almost no relationship between philosophy and science. The tangential you see is science breaking away from philosophy, leaving almost no philosophical arguments to make about science! While there is a common starting point for both disciplines, the target of both disciplines is currently different in almost every case. While a scientist looks for valid, repeatable predictions based on models, philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability. While mathematics looks for axioms and theorems, philosophy rarely touches mathematical axioms.

I am quite simply at a loss. The bolded section says precisely what I have been saying all along, and how you can make that statement and at the same time claim that "there is almost no relationship between philosophy and science" is beyond me. What you are talking about is the empirical nature of science, and empiricism is a philosophical stance. To state that "philosophy rarely searches for models and repeatability" is a completely absurd statement, and shows that though all along you've been talking down to the rest of us (me especially), you in fact don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


Empiricism is all about models and repeatability, and empiricism is an epistemological (and hence philosophical) theory, and probably the most significant epistemological theory at that. You seem unwilling or unable to recognise that empiricism is a theory of knowledge, and conclude that science isn't philosophical because it is empirical, when in fact that's precisely why it is philosophical!


If science is empirical, then it is also philosophical. You've essentially just stated that science is empirical, so we can therefore conclude that science is philosophical, Q.E.D.

I am quite simply at a loss.

Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:

• The model: you at least have two maps, so you have a starting point. You know exactly where the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are, because you can buy a telescope and tabulate the information yourself, just like Galileo, Copernicus, even Ptolomey did.
• The philosophical foundation: already done, you have talked about that for days
• The mathematical formulas: there you have the tabulated data, and if Galileo Kepler could come up with the formulas, you can.
• The experiments: just find out if the tabulated data fits your model, or find a model that does.
• The conclusion: choose the model that fits the data best.

Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.

You are no longer worth my time, trig.

You are no longer worth my time, trig.

Please do not let my deaf ears spoil the learning experience for the other readers of this thread. You know several advancements in Science that came from philosophy (apart from the definition of the Scientific method) but are punishing all the other readers because bad old trig is annoying you. What a disappointment.

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 11:15:22 AM

You are no longer worth my time, trig.

Please do not let my deaf ears spoil the learning experience for the other readers of this thread. You know several advancements in Science that came from philosophy (apart from the definition of the Scientific method) but are punishing all the other readers because bad old trig is annoying you. What a disappointment.

I have already stated at least one. The rest of the readers of this thread are not bullheaded enough to ignore what is right in front of them and can likely do their own research.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 26, 2010, 08:56:29 AM

I am quite simply at a loss.

Good news! Maybe you are now ready to understand a little bit more!

Now go and try some of that empiricism by yourself, and get some empirical evidence of FET! The scientific method is now your friend, so put him to work for you. You might even like it, now that you have fought for the scientific method for several days now!

Try this simple excercise:

• The model: you at least have two maps, so you have a starting point. You know exactly where the Sun, Moon, planets and stars are, because you can buy a telescope and tabulate the information yourself, just like Galileo, Copernicus, even Ptolomey did.
• The philosophical foundation: already done, you have talked about that for days
• The mathematical formulas: there you have the tabulated data, and if Galileo Kepler could come up with the formulas, you can.
• The experiments: just find out if the tabulated data fits your model, or find a model that does.
• The conclusion: choose the model that fits the data best.

Now that we have confirmation from you that the scientific model is philosophically sound, the results that come from it are also sound.

First of all, since you have given up constesting the philosophical nature of science, I take it you concede the point.


Secondly, I never said the scientific method is philosophically sound, just that it is philosophical. There is a huge distinction between those two statements. You seem to have some bizarre notion that I've been 'defending' the scientific method, presumably because I've been claiming that it is philosophical, and you think that as someone interested in philosophy, that amounts to a defence. Of course, this is where you again show that you simply don't understand the nature or scope of philosophy.


There are a number of competing epistmeological theories; that they are opposed doesn't change the fact that they are all philosophical in nature. My argument that science is philosophical in nature does not constitute a defence of science, it is simply a statement of fact.

Wait, so the guy who started this topic is blaming science for his inability to accurately define what a raindrop is?  If mathematics is incorrect, how come Bill Gates was able to write his OS for him?  It must be witchcraft.