Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,910
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Swell! So you too will always have Paris, yes?
Tell Joanie I loved her as Ingrid Bergman.
Swell! So you too will always have Paris, yes?Good to hear. I'm great. Currently cruising the Seine with wife and good friends from our Cairo days. In Rouen today. I'll say hello to Joan of Arc for you.
You've exhibited far more patience with him than I could have. In my experience, miasmic causticity in debate, and purblind awareness of it, are conditions of a personality that chronically hamstrings meaningful philosophical discourse. Most debate forums are replete with them. The only success I've experienced is to not engage. (Not that I follow my own advice as well as I should...)
It's not. Matter of fact I'm spot on.This is completely off topic and non-sequitur. Are you in the wrong thread?
The meaning of 'evidence' and 'theory' does not change in the context of science.
No, it doesn’t. You’ve just chosen to use a different one
I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying (even if what he says is wrong). The meaning of 'theory' is stricter in science than in layman's terminology. It does not change within science, but's it's different than how the layman uses the term.
And what about the alternative arguments:
1.) we exist; therefore, we came about accidentally
2.) we exist; therefore, matter spontaneously came to life
3.) we exist; therefore, we were not created by an intelligent being
Aren't these arguments nonsequiturs and then some? Indeed, your argument at #3 is not only a nonsequitur, but it is also downright dumb.
Much obliged for the linguistics lesson, but you're way off the point with it. ITN and gfm are not talking about ordinary language or the dynamics of everyday communication. They are talking about the foundational assumptions and semantic commitments of a field of study. As I pointed out to you, for naught apparently, even in your engineering example, the foundational theories and concepts are the business of philosophy of engineering, notwithstanding what the ordinary conversation of engineers consists in. This foundational analysis of engineering is the province of philosophers of engineering, trained in engineering and committed to laying out the philosophical groundwork of their field of study. In natural science as well, however the scientists in the labs and research facilities converse.
The philosophical grounding of a field of study is one thing; the everyday practice in that field is another. There is a philosophy of art, which practicing artists for the most part don't know and need not know to practice their art.
Listen, man. You don't know your ass from your elbow about philosophy, religion, or the human condition, and I've asked you with the utmost courtesy to stay out of my face with your bull cockey. I renew that request.Engineering started before philosophy. Philosophy studies engineering, after the fact. All human behavior and activity precedes studying and thinking about that activity and behavior. Philosophy is the tail that wags the dog.
Your limited experience, knowledge, education, reading, or whatever it was that you missed out on is once again evident in this post. Please stop wasting my time.No one makes those arguments.
Your limited experience, knowledge, education, reading, or whatever it was that you missed out on is once again evident in this post. Please stop wasting my time.
Channel Paul Reubens with someone else. Thank you. You don't even have the voice right.You are wasting everyone’s time with your tripe.
No, it isn't. It means the same thing in science as it does in religion as it does anywhere else.I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying (even if what he says is wrong). The meaning of 'theory' is stricter in science than in layman's terminology. It does not change within science, but's it's different than how the layman uses the term.
No seriously these guys invented their own definition
No, it isn't. It means the same thing in science as it does in religion as it does anywhere else.
A theory is an explanatory argument.
There is a huge difference between a scientific theory and theory how it is used by the layman. You might parrot some minor parts of what consitutes a scientific theory, your explanation is deficient , and your usage of it is invalid.
What is this "huge difference" of which you speak of? Present your argument...
No, it isn't. It means the same thing in science as it does in religion as it does anywhere else.
A theory is an explanatory argument.
I wouldn't say that a theory of science "has survived all attacks made against it", but rather that it 'continues to survive attacks made against it'. Science is never settled.Which has survived all attacks against it and nobody has found anything worng with it.
No, it doesn't. Science is incapable of 'prediction'. It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems have the ability to predict.It also has to be able to be useful in predicting stuff.
According to how your unique perception of reality 'explains' that data; I may come up with a different explanation using the same exact data... Also, science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. If it did, then Christianity would be simultaneously scientifically true and false. That is a paradox. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence. Conflicting evidence falsifies theories and destroys them. Supporting evidence does not prove anything; evidence is not synonymous with proof. Religion makes use of supporting evidence, not science.1) It explains the data (supporting evidence).
Science does not have the ability to 'predict' anything. Science is an open functional system, and only closed functional systems have the power of prediction.2) At least several of it's predictions have been tested, and found to be valid. The observations are testable and repeatable.
Science does not have the ability to 'predict' anything. Science is an open functional system, and only closed functional systems have the power of prediction.3) None of the predictions have been falsified.
False Authority Fallacy... Neither Berkeley, nor livescience, nor quizlet.com, nor Murray State, nor the various other websites/sources which all copy/pasted this definition from each other define the word 'theory'. Theory is defined by logic and philosophy as an explanatory argument.4) Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses.
According to how your unique perception of reality 'explains' that data; I may come up with a different explanation using the same exact data... Also, science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. If it did, then Christianity would be simultaneously scientifically true and false. That is a paradox. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence. Conflicting evidence falsifies theories and destroys them. Supporting evidence does not prove anything; evidence is not synonymous with proof. Religion makes use of supporting evidence, not science.
Science does not have the ability to 'predict' anything. Science is an open functional system, and only closed functional systems have the power of prediction.
Science does not have the ability to 'predict' anything. Science is an open functional system, and only closed functional systems have the power of prediction.
False Authority Fallacy... Neither Berkeley, nor livescience, nor quizlet.com, nor Murray State, nor the various other websites/sources which all copy/pasted this definition from each other define the word 'theory'. Theory is defined by logic and philosophy as an explanatory argument.
Try substantive reasoning/counter-arguments next time......deleted 'show me' mantra...
The definition comes from logic and philosophy.
This has nothing to do with the word theory.That’s not how words or communication work. There’s no universal logic dictating “car” means “thing with 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine.” The word “car” could just as easily have meant “common food item consisting of a patty of beef between two buns made of bread” but we called that “hamburger” instead. The words are just symbols that represent some meaning.
It shouldn't, anyway... A theory is not an idea; they are not synonymous.‘Theory’ does not mean ‘idea that has survived one single null hypothesis test’ to anyone in the scientific community.
This has nothing to do with the word theory.
It shouldn't, anyway... A theory is not an idea; they are not synonymous.
A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science is a theory which continues to survive null hypothesis testing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?