Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 254

Thread: My OPINION

  1. #201
    Community Member Krago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Who cares about the whys? Only the lost want to know "Why are we here?"
    But that is the very heart of science, to know why something happens in a particular way. Hence the scientific method.

    Its easy enough to say there is global warming, but its those science geeks trying to figure out WHY it is happening to correct the issue.
    3 Rules to Life

    1.) "Dont teach a pig how to sing because it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
    2.) "Never wrestle a pig in mud, because you get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
    3.) "Never argue with an idiot because people watching cannot tell the difference."
    Krago - Dwarven Barbarian

  2. #202
    Community Member bobbryan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    And this means what, exactly, regarding the actual laws of physics? Again, this all smacks of a very human-centric view of the universe
    You have a problem separating the laws of physics from science. Science is NOT the world around us. Science is our description of the world around us. It's irrelevant that the laws of physics haven't changed... because that's not science.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbryan2 View Post
    Science is NOT the world around us. Science is our description of the world around us. It's irrelevant that the laws of physics haven't changed... because that's not science.
    Exactly.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  4. #204
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbryan2 View Post
    You have a problem separating the laws of physics from science. Science is NOT the world around us. Science is our description of the world around us. It's irrelevant that the laws of physics haven't changed... because that's not science.
    You're the one having the problem separating them. I am perfectly able to separate them. Sometimes semantics matter, but in this case, I made it clear long ago what I meant by "science." To continue to harp on the difference between "the scientific laws of our universe" and "our knowledge of the scientific laws of our universe" is disingenuous and misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krago View Post
    But that is the very heart of science, to know why something happens in a particular way. Hence the scientific method.

    Its easy enough to say there is global warming, but its those science geeks trying to figure out WHY it is happening to correct the issue.
    I think we are talking more about the "big picture" whys, as in "why are we here?" (which is why I used that as an example).

  5. #205
    Community Member bobbryan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    You're the one having the problem separating them. I am perfectly able to separate them. Sometimes semantics matter, but in this case, I made it clear long ago what I meant by "science." To continue to harp on the difference between "the scientific laws of our universe" and "our knowledge of the scientific laws of our universe" is disingenuous and misleading.
    No it's not. What you mean by science is irrelevant to the conversation. Why? Because you're defining science as everything that's right, and religion as everything that's wrong.

    Arguments might apply to one side, but they won't apply to the other. Even if it's the same argument. Why? Because one is right and the other is wrong. You've already formed your conclusions, and you're using that conclusion to sift through the evidence.

    That's what's disingenuous and misleading.

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    Sometimes semantics matter, but in this case, I made it clear long ago what I meant by "science." To continue to harp on the difference between "the scientific laws of our universe" and "our knowledge of the scientific laws of our universe" is disingenuous and misleading.
    Sorry bran, but in matters a lot here.

    Confusing science with truth is confusing knowledge with truth. By your own definition, what we know is what there is.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  7. #207
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbryan2 View Post
    No it's not. What you mean by science is irrelevant to the conversation.
    It's extremely relevant. If we have a conversation and I say "When I say 'cat,' I mean 'dog'," then you don't need to waste time arguing with me later over what I meant when I said "cat."

    Quote Originally Posted by Borror0 View Post
    By your own definition, what we know is what there is.
    That's your definition, i.e., it's not real until humans know it.
    Last edited by branmakmuffin; 01-19-2009 at 11:49 AM.

  8. #208
    Community Member jddonkeykong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    0

    Default this pretty much summerizes the thread


  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    It's extremely relevant.
    Of course the definition of science you use is relevant, but it is also wrong.

    By your own definition, science possesses the truth and is never wrong.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  10. #210
    Community Member bobbryan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    It's extremely relevant. If we have a conversation and I say "When I say 'cat,' I mean 'dog'," then you don't need to waste time arguing with me later over what I meant when I said "cat."
    But your definition is wrong. And I'm not going to sit here having a conversation about a cat when it's obviously a dog.

    Knowledge isn't truth... like Borror said.

    Science = Knowledge. Science isn't truth.

  11. #211
    Community Member Krago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    526

    Default

    I think we are talking more about the "big picture" whys, as in "why are we here?" (which is why I used that as an example).
    Ah, ok. Science will never attempt to answer that question where religion does, and gives several attempts of reasons to why we are here.

    So you are right, science does not care about the "whys" because it wont consider the question.
    3 Rules to Life

    1.) "Dont teach a pig how to sing because it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
    2.) "Never wrestle a pig in mud, because you get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
    3.) "Never argue with an idiot because people watching cannot tell the difference."
    Krago - Dwarven Barbarian

  12. #212
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Borror0 View Post
    Of course the definition of science you use is relevant, but it is also wrong.
    It doesn't matter. You knew the parameters of what I meant when I used the word "science." Now, since you're unable to substantively make ground in the argument, you're deciding to have a fit about a word I used in an unorthodox way, but which I said, several times, I was using in that unorthodox way. If it will make you feel better, you can continue to fulminate over my non-standard use of the word "science," all the while being in full knowledge of what I meant, since I told you several times.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbryan2 View Post
    But your definition is wrong. And I'm not going to sit here having a conversation about a cat when it's obviously a dog.
    You already did. And now that you, like Borror0, are unable to make further headway substantively, you decide now is a good time to have a cow about my use of the word "science." How about we just say, in my context, "science" is shorthand for "the physical laws of our universe, regardless of what we actually know about them," since that's what I meant, and that is what I made clear I meant.
    Last edited by branmakmuffin; 01-19-2009 at 11:58 AM.

  13. #213
    Community Member bobbryan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    It doesn't matter. You knew the parameters of what I meant when I used the word "science." Now, since you're unable to substantively make ground in the argument, you're deciding to have a fit about a word I used in an unorthodox way, but which I said, several times, I was using in that unorthodox way. If it will make you feel better, you can continue to fulminate over my non-standard use of the word "science," all the while being in full knowledge of what I meant, since I told you several times.
    Bran.. what conversation can there be when someone is using a word for truth.

    How can you argue about truth?

    What is there even left to say about truth?

    Truth is... true... man. Whoa... that's deep.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    That's your definition.
    No, you're not understanding what you are saying.

    Science is the description of what we can perceive.

    For a long while, we believed that there was only three dimensions of space. That was a fact. Now, the superstring theory challenges that idea by suggesting there are ten dimensions of space (and one dimension of time). As for the theory of everything, what it suggests is so **** crazy and abstract that it makes my brain melt!

    So, while that we agreed there is three dimensions of space and considered such a fact, now we aren't as sure as we once were. It could possibly be wrong and if it was, then it means that what was previously a fact was wrong. That's because a fact isn't an objective truth but rather a subjective truth. A fact is a fact because we view it as such. A fact is not truth. A fact is a statement that we view, by consensus, as true.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    That's your definition, i.e., it's not real until humans know it.
    You are confusing real and fact.

    It's not a fact until we know about it and assume it to be true, whether if it is actually correct or totally wrong. It is what it is no matter what we know of it. The Universe behaves the same no matter what we know about it. However, what we don't know about it is not considered a fact in a conversation.
    Last edited by Borror0; 01-19-2009 at 12:08 PM.
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  15. #215
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    Epistemological arguments tend to be a waste of time....for both sides.

    Although keep racking up the posts by all means, you all one day will be as awesome as I am!!!

  16. #216
    Community Member Krago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    526

    Default

    How about we just say, in my context, "science" is shorthand for "the physical laws of our universe, regardless of what we actually know about them,"
    Isnt that about as close as someone can get to religion?


    Although keep racking up the posts by all means, you all one day will be as awesome as I am!!!
    Fact!
    3 Rules to Life

    1.) "Dont teach a pig how to sing because it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
    2.) "Never wrestle a pig in mud, because you get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
    3.) "Never argue with an idiot because people watching cannot tell the difference."
    Krago - Dwarven Barbarian

  17. #217
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Borror0 View Post
    No, you're not understanding what you are saying.

    Science is the description of what we can perceive.
    You're still hung up on that. If you want to argue the substance of this, pry yourself off your problems with my use of the word "science." It does not matter, since I explained, many times, what I meant.

    For a long while, we believed that there was only three dimensions of space. That was a fact.
    It was a fact that we believed there were only three dimensions, or it was a fact there were only three dimensions when we believed there were only three dimensions (and for the sake of argument let's assume that we now know there are more than three dimensions)? If you mean "it was a fact there were only three dimensions when we believed there were only three dimensions," that's the ludicrous, human-centric "it's only a fact if humans experience it" view of the universe. Perhaps you have to make clear what you mean by "fact." One definition is "something that actually exists." The actual existence of something is not dependent on our knowing it exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krago View Post
    Isnt that about as close as someone can get to religion?
    No.

  18. #218
    Community Member Montoya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Borror0 View Post
    No, you're not understanding what you are saying.

    Science is the description of what we can perceive.

    For a long while, we believed that there was only three dimensions of space. That was a fact. Now, the superstring theory challenges that idea by suggesting there are ten dimensions of space (and one dimension of time). As for the theory of everything, what it suggests is so **** crazy and abstract that it makes my brain melt!

    So, while that we agreed there is three dimensions of space and considered such a fact, now we aren't as sure as we once were. It could possibly be wrong and if it was, then it means that what was previously a fact was wrong. That's because a fact isn't an objective truth but rather a subjective truth. A fact is a fact because we view it as such. A fact is not truth. A fact is a statement that we view, by consensus, as true.
    This statement is why I would agree with Borror0 and in a way with the OP. We see things very clearly as true all the time only to find out we were mistaken. i.e how many planets in our solar system did we think there were 50 years ago and now how many are there? The OP has a point in that many threads could accomplish something if all the posters were more interested in getting their point understood and less in shouting others down and being "right"

  19. #219
    Relic of the Last War
    Scholar of Adventure
    Founder
    Kistilan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspenor View Post
    Although keep racking up the posts by all means, you all one day will be as awesome as I am!!!
    I was born that awesome.

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
    Perhaps you have to make clear what you mean by "fact." One definition is "something that actually exists." The actual existence of something is not dependent on our knowing it exists.
    I clarified it up there when I saw you added "i.e., it's not real until humans know it."
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload