Thread: "Science" vs Metaphysics: The Definitive Debate

The Michelson-Morely Experiment made a bad assumption, and came to a false conclusion.
Firstly the ether doesn't necessarily move in just one direction, it's a wave. It could be expanding radially, so that it changes each beam of light the same. But more importantly, ether makes light what it is. Ether when "contacting" light, will permeate right through it, not push it faster. How can we detect ether then? Ether is a medium, with waves that propagate. These waves are gravitational-torsion waves. We are at a technological limit, as our finest instruments have a margin of error about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the expected magnitude of the gravitational-torsion waves. We could make better machines, but it's not my job.

As far as the decision makers, I referred to them as a small portion of society, and the less educated as majority. I do think that the ones making the decisions should be the less educated. The uneducated will make the choice without any possible predilection.

And as far as Newton's second law goes, my F was meant to be the sum of all f. Anyways, Newton's second law states: The sum of all forces on a closed system is equal to the rate of change of momentum of that closed system. Almost always, the rate of change of momentum is equivelent to the mass times acceleration (F = d/dt(m(t)*v(t))). There is only a difference when something's mass is a function of time.

In order to have an event happen, it requires that there is something to observe, and someone to observe it. Your first scenario won't ever happen, because no one can observe it. If I isolate myself from society, and drop a leaf from my hand, if no one, including me, ever sees it fall to the ground, does that show that gravity does not exist? No. Your argument can be turned around, but they are both wrong.

For the sour milk, you would have to define what being sour is, and someone has to observe the milk changing from "good" to "sour".

The tornado material mainly focused on what, not why. I will say the fusing that can take place must take place inside the tornado, not outside, like the straw/chicken or 2x4/truck. The inside of a tornado hasn't really been modeled.

I think the idea of a math model as being helpful is wrong. Math models explain how we expect something to behave, based on what we observe. It doesn't explain why. Consider more questions. Which of the following three questions will the math model be able to answer?

Why does a tornado take the shape that it does? Why is this shape necessary for a tornado to do what we observe it doing? How well will a tornado work if it is a rotating square?

As far as the graviton, you are focusing on what not why. You should stop with the brute force method of forcing something to fit, and turn towards elegance, let everything fall into place. Levity is to levitational force as gravity is to gravitational force. Typically gravity is stronger and cancels out levity. Note as we go further into the earth, levity stands a better chance, and the resulting difference, typically known as gravity, decreases.

The properties of subatomic particles. Since you asked how, we would need to turn to our subatomic model. However, it's too complex to understand. We shouldn't care how things happen, as long as they do. We should appreciate that it does happen.

When I said that galaxies (and our solar systems by the way) are shaped like discs, I thought you could incinuate that disks have a physical center. Likewise, that our solar system has a center, the sun, and the galaxy must too have a center. God being at the center is icing on the cake.

You can be right for the wrong reason. Do I need to invoke a A implies B implies C logical argument?

Conclusion
Science is happy knowing how things work, and what's happening. Why things are should be independent of what, and since science refused to address this, science will simply be science. This will be inferior to whatever ventures into why. Science is right for the wrong reason.

Originally posted by Peregrinus

Failure, huh? *You know what the really nice thing about that model which you so flippantly declare to be a failure is? *It WORKS! *Operating on those assumptions about the physical world has lead to the development of sanitized water facilities, automobiles, vaccines, antibiotics, sterilization techniques, airplanes, rockets, space ships, space stations, telescopes to study the far reaches of the universe, electricity, computers, wrinkle-free fabric, the internet, and leave-in conditioner. *Of course, it could all be an illusion—a giant hoax by the Ether God…

So what you're saying is that using these assumptions we can see that these assumptions have allowed us to make terrific advances for civilization. If that's not begging the question, it's damn close.

Distant Clone wrote:

I do think that the ones making the decisions should be the less educated. The uneducated will make the choice without any possible predilection. [/b]

If this ever comes to fruition, then I'm sure you would be the prime candidate to head this movement.

DistantClone, I am not going to waste my time going point by point desecrating your post. You have absolutely no understanding of modern science or even the scientific method. Your gullibility for pseudo-science and very thought processes seem to preclude any sort of intelligent, productive discourse.

Originally posted by Belisarius
If that's not begging the question, it's damn close.

Begging what question?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition trying to be proved is assumed as one of the premises. It's basically saying "this is true because it is true".

Originally posted by Belisarius
Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition trying to be proved is assumed as one of the premises. *It's basically saying \"this is true because it is true\".

No, it's saying, "If these premises are operationally correct, the products of research and development conducted under the premises will also be operational and correct.” Since the science and technology developed while working under these premises are operational, consistent, and, to the best of our ability to detect and measure, correct, it is logical to accept the original premises as operationally correct.

Originally posted by Peregrinus


No, it's saying, \"If these premises are operationally correct, the products of research and development conducted under the premises will also be operational and correct.” *Since the science and technology developed while working under these premises are operational, consistent, and, to the best of our ability to detect and measure using the premises we are trying to prove correct , correct, it is logical to accept the original premises as operationally correct.

The bold is what you left out.

Belisarius, Please do not modify my words and then present them as the originals within quotes. It is rude and a misrepresentation.

What you seem to be missing is that all important word that I included each time I used the word "correct." That word is "operationally." Science deals, by its very definition, with those things which can be physically observed, measured, and studied. Some of those assumptions you mentioned (although not all) are required for operation within the realm of scientific inquiry. Since those operational assumptions (assumptions required for the operation of scientific research) have WORKED, there is no reason why they should not be accepted as internally consistent within the scientific discipline and therefore operationally correct. To the best of our ability to determine the veracity of those assumptions, they are true, and so, as we operate within the scientific realm of inquiry, we accept them as correct. You can try to argue that the entire universe is one giant illusion that disappears every time you sneeze, but if you cannot detect that disappearance, that divergence from what is considered physical normalcy, it is a scientifically worthless argument. Try it at a New Age conference and you might get a better reception.

Take your example of the assumption of object permanence: If you leave your room and isolate it from all external influences and then return to find all objects in exactly the same place and in the same condition in which you left them again, and again, and again, every time and without fail, you can, to the best of your abilities to observe and analyze the physical world, assume object permanence. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the genetic sequencing of a duck, you might as well call it a duck and not a psychological manifestation of something that might or might not appear to be what in the common vernacular is called a “duck.”

While I agree with you that the assumptions to which I objected earlier are consistant within the scientific discipline, I am making an objection to the scientific discipline as a whole, an objection that is necessarily refuted if you are arguing within the realm of scientific inquiry, because within such a realm those assumptions to which I object are granted. Science is internally consistant, as far as I understand it, but then again so is Islam, and if I were objecting to Islam and you were a devout muslim all you would have to do is cite a passage from the Koran to win the arguement, if we were arguing within the Islamic Worldview.

My objection is to empiricism, science, and the beliefs which, seemingly by our nature, we tend to accept without justification. You can't reasonably justify the tools with which we observe and analyze the outside world by using the tools with which we observe and analyze the outside world, and without justification your beliefs are as good as the devout muslims, and held soley on the grounds of faith.

What, exactly, is your objection to science and empiricism?

Science does not claim to define reality. Science describes reality. It answers how Nature operates, not why it operates the way it does. Science describes that which is physically detectable. It does that well. It does that so well that those descriptions have enabled humankind to predict and manipulate the natural world in ways that have drastically improved the standard of living for millions of people and have given us a more thorough understanding of natural processes and the intricacies of physical reality than ever before in human history.

But that does not make science the purveyor of all truth, the final answer on the nature of reality? Of course not. Science deals only with descriptions of physical reality. Science answers the questions of “how,” never the questions of “why.” Science can tell you how gravity behaves, it cannot tell you why it behaves that way. Science cannot give meaning to the world, nor should it try.

The fact that Western society has adopted the rational, scientific tradition as more respectable and more worthy of pursuit than more intuitive, artistic endeavors is in my opinion unbalanced, but is not something which should be held against scientific inquiry itself. Science can offer explanations of many life experiences, can allow us to analyze the physical world in advantageous and worthwhile ways, and that should not be dismissed. The fact that science cannot offer a complete explanation of existence is not something that should disqualify the scientific discipline from the roll it can play in our lives. The realm of scientific inquiry illuminates one piece of the puzzle. It has never claimed otherwise. It can never do otherwise. That does not make it useless. That does not make it deceptive. That does not make it defective. The realm of scientific inquiry is one piece of the puzzle. I happen to find it a very important and fascinating piece. Maybe you don’t. That’s your prerogative. But you should form that opinion with knowledge of that which you are dismissing, not as you have presented yourself here—ill-informed and ignorant of the scientific process and the discipline of science in general.

P.S. I'm going out of town for a few days, so I'll continue this discussion when I return on Monday.

I both agree and disagree with the two of you.

I agree that the scientific process, when used correctly, is the best way that we as humans have to decypher the goings-on of the world around us. The method, in itself, is very respectable, when it is done with the true objective of scientific exploration.
However, the truth remains that with the hypothesis/conclusion portion of the scientific process, it is open to personal opinion. Different scientists may draw different conclusions based upon the evidence of the same given scientific experiment, and that truth may be based upon bias which could infiltrate any portion of the scientific process, even from the very begining. When dealing with matters of the "metaphysical" there is (and will always be until irrefutable proof is given) a gray area of uncertainty. A scientist, (or any other human being for that matter) is capable of giving a conclusion from gathered information that differs with another scientist. Even after exploration, this does not necessarily make any of the two 'wrong' because the hypothesis/conclusion is formed from the observer's logic, and no one else can ever discredit that, if the logic is sound. The truth remains that there is more than one respectably (word?) logical sequence that can be made from a single experiment, and it is in this grey area that many "scientists" (note the quotations) could give a number of compelling arguements as to why this is the most logical assumption, and that is where the scientific process must accept its margin for error. And it is in this area that many pseudo-skeptics make their most passionate stands.
I understand both points of view that have been most recently voiced, however neither one could rightfully dismiss the other, in my opinion. The scientific process is neither perfect, nor something that should be taken lightly. Just like the human opinion, it is subject to more than one perspective, and though, in one person's 'reality,' it could prove the 'most logical' direction of reasoning, it is important to note that, in another, it could be full of holes and assumptuous declaration. Not all "scientists" are on the table to promote (sp?) Truth, as Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and some "scientists" get by, after making a conclusion, on the sole faith that whoever they are 'educating' will not do enough research to prove them wrong.

Though I have great respect for the scientific process, one must not be ignorant of the fact that it is fallible (sp) and can be manipulated by a compelling arguement by someone who simply believes (with enough conviction) their own hypothesis to be correct.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
What, exactly, is your objection to science and empiricism? *

Science does not claim to define reality. *Science describes reality. *It answers how Nature operates, not why it operates the way it does. *Science describes that which is physically detectable. *It does that well. *It does that so well that those descriptions have enabled humankind to predict and manipulate the natural world in ways that have drastically improved the standard of living for millions of people and have given us a more thorough understanding of natural processes and the intricacies of physical reality than ever before in human history. *

But that does not make science the purveyor of all truth, the final answer on the nature of reality? *Of course not. *Science deals only with descriptions of physical reality. *Science answers the questions of “how,” never the questions of “why.” *Science can tell you how gravity behaves, it cannot tell you why it behaves that way. *Science cannot give meaning to the world, nor should it try.

The fact that Western society has adopted the rational, scientific tradition as more respectable and more worthy of pursuit than more intuitive, artistic endeavors is in my opinion unbalanced, but is not something which should be held against scientific inquiry itself. *Science can offer explanations of many life experiences, can allow us to analyze the physical world in advantageous and worthwhile ways, and that should not be dismissed. *The fact that science cannot offer a complete explanation of existence is not something that should disqualify the scientific discipline from the roll it can play in our lives. *The realm of scientific inquiry illuminates one piece of the puzzle. *It has never claimed otherwise. *It can never do otherwise. *That does not make it useless. *That does not make it deceptive. *That does not make it defective. *The realm of scientific inquiry is one piece of the puzzle. *I happen to find it a very important and fascinating piece. *Maybe you don’t. *That’s your prerogative. *But you should form that opinion with knowledge of that which you are dismissing, not as you have presented yourself here—ill-informed and ignorant of the scientific process and the discipline of science in general.

P.S. *I'm going out of town for a few days, so I'll continue this discussion when I return on Monday.

My objection to empiricism is that it operates on unproven assumptions and thus is not a valid way of attaining knowledge.

In your last two posts you have used empiricism to support empiricism's premises and your own personal claims of empiricism's utility to mankind. That's the same as using the Bible to support christianity's premises and the miracles in the Bible as evidence of God's power.

You must first establish empiricism's premises as true before establishing any belief arrived at through empiricism and by extension science as true. I challenge you to do this.

Originally posted by Belisarius
My objection to empiricism is that it operates on unproven assumptions and thus is not a valid way of attaining knowledge.

Unproven? They are validated every single day in your interaction with the physical world.

In your last two posts you have used empiricism to support empiricism's premises and your own personal claims of empiricism's utility to mankind. That's the same as using the Bible to support christianity's premises and the miracles in the Bible as evidence of God's power.[/b]

That is a ridiculously flawed comparison. The miracles reported in the Bible are ancient accounts, often written decades after the proposed individual events. These events were non-repeatable and have not been widely observed in modern times. Events based on empirically-based science and technology are repeatedly observed day after day to conform to theory. A 2000-year-old story is not comparable with constant, repeatable, predictable, contemporary experience. You should know better.

You must first establish empiricism's premises as true before establishing any belief arrived at through empiricism and by extension science as true. I challenge you to do this.[/b]

The fact that you are able to write and post this message, that electricity flows through your home, that your computer functions predictably every time you turn it on, that technology thousands of miles away are able to interface daily, practically seamlessly, should be proof enough. To the best of anybody’s ability to test and confirm, they are true. What possible evidence do you have that they are not true, besides some burning, idealistic wish that this world is more hospitable to your will than it actually is?

Originally posted by Peregrinus

The fact that you are able to write and post this message, that electricity flows through your home, that your computer functions predictably every time you turn it on, that technology thousands of miles away are able to interface daily, practically seamlessly, should be proof enough. To the best of anybody’s ability to test and confirm, they are true. What possible evidence do you have that they are not true, besides some burning, idealistic wish that this world is more hospitable to your will than it actually is?

Those "facts" are all established by empiricism!

The fact that you remember technology functioning in the way you believe it does, does not mean that in any actual state of reality technology ever functioned in the way you believe.

The question I am asking you is how testing and confirming can lead to knowledge and you are responding by giving me the results of tests and confirmations! I cannot accept facts learned through empirical processes as proof that empiricism is true. Would that not be absurd!?!

I have no evidence that empricisim's premises are not true, but I have no evidence that they are. Empiricism is internally consistant as are almost all of the beliefs that are come to through it's exercise, but internally consistant does not mean true. As far as I can tell, Islam and Solipsism are internaly consistant, and yet you would certainly not claim they are true. The burden of proof is on you. You must show, without resorting to empiricism's employment, that empiricism's premises are true.

Belisarius,

Having a discussion with you is like arguing with a child who stick carrots in their ears while screaming "NA NA NANA, you're not real. I can't hear you!" So, for the very last time, because my time is more valuable than playing rinse-and-repeat science instructor to someone who thinks a light bulb functioning with universal consistency is equivalent to a 2000-year-old description of a purported one-time event, I will repeat this nice and slowly for you:

The only things you have available to you as a source of knowledge about the physical world are your senses.

There is nothing outside of this sensory environment available to offer an "outside" perspective. If you want to believe that every sensory perception you have is an illusion created by an fluffy white bunny shining his carrot-light onto your mind and creating this vast hoax that is consistent and complete and outside of which you have absolutely no experience, be my guest. Then you can define science as the study of that consistent, repeatable, complete hoax. That does not in any way diminish the value of science, since, if there is a giant bunny running the hoax show, the hoax is still all that you are able to experience.

You are part of this closed system that is the universe, and your senses are confined to it. If you want to speculate about something that may or may not exist beyond -- something that, being outside of the system, you can neither experience nor test -- that's fine. Have at it. But do not compare your baseless, idle imaginings to tested, consistent, experienced science. One is something that you, as a physical, experiential being, by definition cannot experience since it lies outside the system and is therefore unavailable to your senses. The other is something that is experienced and confirmed every day. They are not comparable. I cannot disprove your giant fluffy bunny theory any more than you can prove it. Any imagining is as plausible and implausible as any other, because none are testable. It is idle speculation. Period. Whether there exists an objective world of tables and chairs and computers and light bulbs or all is simply direct electrical input into the mind by a rabbit or some great celestial being, the result is the same -- this world of experience. This physical world which science studies. Speculation about what is beyond is a simply an imaginative, psychological exercise since you have no experience to justify such speculation and corresponding beliefs.

How do I know that this world is real? That knowledge gained through my senses and analyzed through scientific processes is accurate? How do you know that it's not? The point is that such questions are irrelevant. They are unanswerable and irrelevant. Regardless, you will experience exactly the same thing and that thing, this world, is all you can know.

And that's it. If you can't understand the distinction by now, I can't help you, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying.

Having a discussion with you is like arguing with a child who stick carrots in their ears while screaming \"NA NA NANA, you're not real. I can't hear you!\" So, for the very last time, because my time is more valuable than playing rinse-and-repeat science instructor to someone who thinks a light bulb functioning with universal consistency is equivalent to a 2000-year-old description of a purported one-time event, I will repeat this nice and slowly for you: [/b]

Not once in any of our discussions have I resorted to insulting you, and not once in this debate have you said anything besides \"I am right because I am!\" You have met each of my posts with evasiveness. If your idea of debate is screaming \"I am right!\" louder than your opponent and then insulting him, then I certainly hope it isn't successful.

The only things you have available to you as a source of knowledge about the physical world are your senses.

There is nothing outside of this sensory environment available to offer an \"outside\" perspective. If you want to believe that every sensory perception you have is an illusion created by an fluffy white bunny shining his carrot-light onto your mind and creating this vast hoax that is consistent and complete and outside of which you have absolutely no experience, be my guest. Then you can define science as the study of that consistent, repeatable, complete hoax. That does not in any way diminish the value of science, since, if there is a giant bunny running the hoax show, the hoax is still all that you are able to experience. [/b]

Not once in this debate have I claimed knowledge outside of perception, so take down that straw man.

You are part of this closed system that is the universe, and your senses are confined to it. If you want to speculate about something that may or may not exist beyond -- something that, being outside of the system, you can neither experience nor test -- that's fine. Have at it. But do not compare your baseless, idle imaginings to tested, consistent, experienced science. One is something that you, as a physical, experiential being, by definition cannot experience since it lies outside the system and is therefore unavailable to your senses. The other is something that is experienced and confirmed every day. They are not comparable. I cannot disprove your giant fluffy bunny theory any more than you can prove it. Any imagining is as plausible and implausible as any other, because none are testable. It is idle speculation. Period. Whether there exists an objective world of tables and chairs and computers and light bulbs or all is simply direct electrical input into the mind by a rabbit or some great celestial being, the result is the same -- this world of experience. This physical world which science studies. Speculation about what is beyond is a simply an imaginative, psychological exercise since you have no experience to justify such speculation and corresponding beliefs. [/b]

Science and beliefs arrived at through it IS NOT the same thing as experiential reality. Our experiences ARE all we can know, what we cannot know is how they relate to the outside world. What we experience is touch, light, taste, smell, sound, memory, thought, etc..., we don't experience a broad scientific view of the universe, we have a very local and defined perspective. You claim that a materialistic view of the universe is necessary given our senses, which it is certainly not. For all we know, senses are completely dissassociated with each other, seeing yourself touch a mouse and feeling the mouse and remembering a similar occurance could be coincidental, or remembrance of the same occurance could be caused by the occurance itself. In order to arrive at a scientific understanding of experience you must use certain baseless assumptions, chiefly the assumption that memory is an accurate record of past occurances. For all I know my memories could convey future events, or events that never have and never will occur at all.

Science not only necessitates assumptions, but belief in events outside of our perception. For example, you probably are not seeing the electricy that your computer runs on being produced, and yet you establish it's production as a cause of your computer's ability to run. You say that because you remember hearing that electricity is produced in a power plant in your area and routed through wiring to your computer it must be true. You probably don't even remember experiencing the production of the electricity used by your computer and so it is decidedly an event outside of your experience, just like Zues hurling down lightning from the heavens.

So what, in this case you have, to support your belief, is a memory which may or may not be accurate of a second-hand(at best) account which may or may not be accurate of an experience unlike any you can remember. You may be right, or you may not, in any case, to call it knowledge would be unjustifiable.

The world experiences is a very, very small one. It comes down to the raw sensory data that you are percieving at this very instant. Any beliefs explaining that sense-data are mere conjecture, including science and metaphysics. If this is the end of this debate, then my position is not only I don't know, when it comes to metaphysics, but also I don't know when it comes to science. I wiill go even further and state that no being of similar nature to mine, has the ability to know. By nature, for better or worse, we are constrained to knowledge only of each of our direct experiences.

Somehow it never ends. I should have learned by now not to say, "This is the end."

Ok, Belisarius, I apologize for insulting you. I was getting annoyed that this discussion is going nowhere but back around in endless circles of misunderstanding, and so reverted to emotional venting, which, although not proper debating technique, made me feel better. I shouldn’t have let that annoyance get the better of me, so if you were greatly offended, I apologize.

Not once in this debate have I claimed knowledge outside of perception, so take down that straw man.[/b]

No, but you have claimed that if I cannot produce knowledge outside of perception to justify the scientific way of knowing, that science is worthless. “But what if our perceptions do not accurately reflect some ‘outside world’?” That is what your entire argument has boiled down to. Again all you can know are your perceptions. How can you know whether our perceptions are perfectly reflective of some \"outside existence\" unless you have some objective, outside knowledge of what is being perceived? You can’t. What you are asking me to do is impossible, even by your own admission. Also, since you claim no knowledge outside of perception, you have no reason and no evidence to suggest that our perceptions are not accurate.

Science not only necessitates assumptions, but belief in events outside of our perception. For example, you probably are not seeing the electricy that your computer runs on being produced, and yet you establish it's production as a cause of your computer's ability to run. You say that because you remember hearing that electricity is produced in a power plant in your area and routed through wiring to your computer it must be true. You probably don't even remember experiencing the production of the electricity used by your computer and so it is decidedly an event outside of your experience, just like Zues hurling down lightning from the heavens.[/b]

I have generated electricity myself through electromagnetic induction, so its production is no mystery to me. And if I doubt that electricity is really being routed to my house from the power plant, I can always unplug my computer and stick my finger in the outlet. For that matter, you could do the same if you succumb to such doubt. It’s quite a convincing test.

You think that science is baseless and as mysterious as the ancient religions to which you insist on comparing it because you do not understand it. What is your background in science? Every one of your objections thus far has indicated a lack of familiarity with even basic scientific principles. Science does not claim knowledge of any purported “outside world”. It describes this world of perception and experience. Whether the perceived world exists as is, or whether it is some elaborate, complete, consistent, perfect hoax is completely irrelevant to science if that hoax cannot be detected. Science describes perception. Period. The validity of science is that it studies and describes those perceptions -- our physical world -- reliably and to the point of predictability. It seeks to understand the world of perception, not what may or may not lie outside of that.

Our experiences ARE all we can know, what we cannot know is how they relate to the outside world.[/b]

Our experiences are our world. You cannot know an “outside world”. All you can know is that which is available to your senses. (déjà vu, didn’t I spend then entire last post explaining this?) If you cannot sense this “outside world” in any way, what on earth is the point of speculating about its existence?

By nature, for better or worse, we are constrained to knowledge only of each of our direct experiences.[/b]

But you have said repeatedly that direct experience cannot be trusted, disassociated senses and all that, so what do you mean by this statement?

A suggestion: Read Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy”. It addresses the question of experience and knowledge and the limits of what we, as human beings, can truly know about our reality. Descartes starts out rejecting any source of knowledge which could be doubted, and, famously, decided that the only thing of which he can have sure knowledge is his own existence. He then proceeds to reconstruct knowledge and systems of knowledge and ultimately, if you agree with his analysis, comes to some distinct conclusions about the existence and nature of God and of the physical, external world. I read “Meditations” four years ago and am not going to drag it out and summarize it further, so I suggest that you read it yourself. Honestly, I think it will help you, especially since we had a very similar discussion about the nature of perceptions, here, back in December, when I also recommended Descartes to you..

I have only read the last page of this discussion; I'm new. But, if I may be so bold ...

Originally posted by Belisarius
The question I am asking you is how testing and confirming can lead to knowledge and you are responding by giving me the results of tests and confirmations! I cannot accept facts learned through empirical processes as proof that empiricism is true. Would that not be absurd!?!

Belisarius, that statement is a detriment to effective communication as sure as is hanging up the phone. You are asking for proof, which in itself is a function of logic. Logic is a system of inference and deduction based upon our subjective experience of the (seemingly) objective world. By denying any asnwer based upon empericism, you deny any answer based upon logic, ergo you deny proof itself. You have closed the line of communication upon which you demand an answer, and I have to agree with Peregrinus: Those do look like carrots in your ears.

Peregrinus, your words stand up straight and step in time. That is commendable, but very inneffective when dealing with such ephemerial debate material. Let's get philisophical for a minute. The percieved universe is a box. Science does a good job of guessing what happens inside this box. Instead of becomming frustrated trying to explain that what is outside the box is by nature impercievable, consider in awe the vastness of that which is outside the box. Then consider that as surely as the law of the universe defines quite effectively - by way of the concept of infinity - the inside edges of the box, something outside of perception defines the outside edges of the box, containing it; containing all multidudes of infinities.

I would reccomend that both of you look into the concept of non-duality; it has been for me an excelent tangle remover.

Okey dokey, flame on.

O'Nieronaut,
What exactly is the concept of non-duality?

Non-duality is the idea that the universe is not, as it appears to be, made up of many things. It is in fact one thing, without bound or division. I'm sure you've heard of people trying to 'be one with the universe'. It is a realization that cannot come from perceptions; it is a direct experience that cannot be put precicely into words. 'Oneness' is the term used to descibe it.

Duality, conversely, is the idea that things are actualy different and disparate. While this seems to make sense, it cannot be proven, even with empiricism. Where is the edge of you? What is it that separates you from the rest of the universe? It is impossible to say. Some of the most common dualities of mankind include good and evil; love and hate; up and down; existence and oblivion; and you and me. Dualities are strictly necessary for survival in the world. We need to be able to differentiate friend from foe, and water from sand. If we truly realized that it is all one thing, we would blunder at life. Life gets interesting when you start to realize the fallacy of such polarities.

Take emotions for example. What happens when you become profoundly sad? You cry, of course. So what about when you reach the antetheoretical couterpart; profound happines? Why, you cry. The two emotions are chemically the same, ergo our bodies react to them in the same way. The distinction is a purely intellectual one. We learn from experience and education which reactions ensure our survival. Fundamentaly, though, these oppossites, just like all other opposites, are equal. Duality is an illusion.

This is why the quest for a unified theory is hopeless. We can divide this one universe into smaller and smaller parts in order to predict the next moment, but it is still a dissemination, and therefore never complete. The unified theory is "1", and it cannot predict anything but its own existence. This, IMHO, is non-duality.

I've heard of that philosophy before; it's fairly prevalent in Eastern and many indigenous religions. I’m not sure what you mean by nonduality being a “realization that cannot come from perceptions; it is a direct experience.” Experience is a product of perception. As I understand it, many people who subscribe to a philosophy of nonduality have had fairly convincing personal experiences (and I'm sure some people jump in because they find it a comfortable and reassuring idea). I’m not going to pass judgment on the nature of those experiences - what they may mean or indicate about physical reality - but the philosophy you are proposing is in a different category from that of Belisarius (at least for those people who have had some sort of experience). Whereas Belisarius thinks observed, physical reality is a charade that is completely undetectable as such, with no experiences to indicate that anything is other than what it seems, numerous people who subscribe to nonduality (and many other philosophical and religious beliefs) have had some sort of perceptual experience that motivates that belief. Whether or not those experiences are indicative of some aspect of reality is not something about which I care to speculate at this time. However, the fact that some experience exists is what differentiates such beliefs from the “world is a hoax but there’s no way you can know it” belief.

Also, a clarification: The Grand Unified Theory (GUT - the holy grail of physics) actually seeks to unify the forces observed in physical reality, not partition them further. What we have now is a partitioning, where we use different equations for the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. The GUT would have one equation or set of equations from which those four fundamental forces would emerge.

Peregrinus, your words stand up straight and step in time. That is commendable, but very inneffective when dealing with such ephemerial debate material. Let's get philisophical for a minute. The percieved universe is a box. Science does a good job of guessing what happens inside this box. Instead of becomming frustrated trying to explain that what is outside the box is by nature impercievable, consider in awe the vastness of that which is outside the box. Then consider that as surely as the law of the universe defines quite effectively - by way of the concept of infinity - the inside edges of the box, something outside of perception defines the outside edges of the box, containing it; containing all multidudes of infinities. [/b]

Much of this debate has been a very wordy misunderstanding.

I think Onieronaut's analogy of the box is accurate, only I disagree that science describes what's in that box, I think science goes far beyond that. What science effectively does is take what's in the box, which needs no description as it is directly percieved, and uses it, along with a few assumptions to predict what is possible to be percieved, and what will be percieved.

I think Pergrinus' problem thus far has been connecting experience directly to the scientific viewpoint of the world, but there are probably an infinite number of explanations for what we experience just as valid as the contemporary scientific viewpoint. There are many different ways to think about what's inside the box, and some make the scientific method unreliable.

I think I am an empiricist, only of an extremely skeptical sort. I think the only knowledge we can get is through our senses, but that anything beyond what we directly sense can't be called knowledge. I think we are by nature attracted to a 'common sense' view of reality, and that science follows very consistantly from that, but do not confuse common interpretation of our experiences with the experiences themselves. If you look at only our perceptions, then it is clear that neither common sense reality nor science directly follow from them.

I must conceed, however, that I am at some level convinced by science and the common conception of reality, as I seldom walk off cliffs or forget to eat. Science is probably the simplest explanation for our perceptions and I think that by that virtue it naturally attracts us. However, I am not convinced at an intellectual level that it is necessarily accurate.

Originally posted by Belisarius
I think Onieronaut's analogy of the box is accurate, only I disagree that science describes what's in that box, I think science goes far beyond that. What science effectively does is take what's in the box, which needs no description as it is directly percieved, and uses it, along with a few assumptions to predict what is possible to be percieved, and what will be percieved.

You again misunderstand the scientific meaning of the word \"description\". A scientific description of the world is not \"the sky is blue; the grass is green; fire is hot; etc\" Science describes how the sky appears blue - it describes the scattering and absorption that occur in the atmosphere and result in the transmission through the troposphere of a dominant wavelength of light which our eyes and brain perceive as the color blue. Science describes both the mechanisms which produce the phenomena we perceive and also the phenomena themselves. These mechanisms are predicted by theoretical models and confirmed by field and laboratory testing. The perceptions available to the average human being (namely the observation that \"the sky is blue\") is generally less than those available for scientific study (e.g. scientists can test absorption and scattering in the laboratory and send drones and even manned crafts to explore the phenomena in the atmosphere itself).

I think Pergrinus' problem thus far has been connecting experience directly to the scientific viewpoint of the world, but there are probably an infinite number of explanations for what we experience just as valid as the contemporary scientific viewpoint. [/b]

Oh yeah, such as? Give a concrete example, please, Belisarius, because this "probably", "maybe" stuff isn't going to hold up anymore.

As for your "science doesn't describe what's in the box" proclamation, it's nonsense:

What you have continued to argue throughout this entire discussion is that science is not true because it might not accurately describe something which science has never sought to describe - namely some hidden/"outside"/non-perceivable reality that might or might not exist (not that you could ever know). How can you not see the fallacy in this?

You are stretching science into an area in which it was never meant to be used (actually, it's an area that nothing can be used to explore if it is truly non-experiential), and then, because science cannot describe or validate such an area, you claim that it is worthless. You are creating your own false definition of the limits of science, and then when real science does not perform to your definition, you declare it flawed and useless. That's like taking a car, driving it into a lake, and then, because the car sinks to the bottom instead of jetting across the surface like a SeaDoo, declaring the car to be a worthless piece of crap that's no good for anything and should never have been manufactured in the first place and should definitely not be sold and its legacy of inadequacy perpetuated throughout the population, thank you very much, that settles that. But, you see, it was a car, not a boat. Cars function very well and are extremely useful on the land - in the realm in which they are intended to be used - just as science functions very well in its intended realm of inquiry - namely, the perceivable, physical world.

You can no more dump a car into a lake and expect it to function as a jet ski than you can expect science (or any worldly enterprise) to inform on some hypothesized and impossible-to-ever-test, non-perceivable reality. Actually, to extend the metaphor to its conclusion, what you have really been saying is that "if a lake (a lake for which you have absolutely no evidence and for which you can never hope to have any evidence) exists, then a car is useless because it cannot be used to explore a lake." If a lake exists, a car is useless? I don't know how I can make any more clear how truly ridiculous and absurd such a proposal is. But that's what you're saying, where car=science and lake=unknown/unknowable, undetectable, non-perceivable, potential "outside reality". It is absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical.

You again misunderstand the scientific meaning of the word \"description\". A scientific description of the world is not \"the sky is blue; the grass is green; fire is hot; etc\" Science describes how the sky appears blue - it describes the scattering and absorption that occur in the atmosphere and result in the transmission through the troposphere of a dominant wavelength of light which our eyes and brain perceive as the color blue. Science describes both the mechanisms which produce the phenomena we perceive and also the phenomena themselves. These mechanisms are predicted by theoretical models and confirmed by field and laboratory testing. The perceptions available to the average human being (namely the observation that \"the sky is blue\") is generally less than those available for scientific study (e.g. scientists can test absorption and scattering in the laboratory and send drones and even manned crafts to explore the phenomena in the atmosphere itself). [/b]

The percpetions available to the average human being are the box(and that's being generous) that we have to work with, noone has the perspective of a scientific study. In order for one to accept a scientific study he must first accept a whole body of unfounded beliefs.

Oh yeah, such as? Give a concrete example, please, Belisarius, because this \"probably\", \"maybe\" stuff isn't going to hold up anymore. [/b]

Sure, our percpetions at this moment(which is all we have to referece) are just a random occurance before our consciousness, that's a very simple one.

As for your \"science doesn't describe what's in the box\" proclamation, it's nonsense:

What you have continued to argue throughout this entire discussion is that science is not true because it might not accurately describe something which science has never sought to describe - namely some hidden/\"outside\"/non-perceivable reality that might or might not exist (not that you could ever know). How can you not see the fallacy in this?
[/b]

And up, once again, goes the straw man, and proof that you can't separate experience from the scientific viewpoint. I have never asked that science describe something unobservable. I have asked that the worldview which science is founded upon be defended(and not by science). I have never tried to drive science onto a lake. I started up the car and asked you how you know the lake is frozen. If you can defend science's foundations as solid ice, I will be more than happy to drive science to it's wonderful conclusions, if you can not, I will hesitate before driving into deep water. I never asked science to defend it's own premises(in fact I argued against your attempts in this reguard), I asked you to defend it's premises.

Science's premises as I have described them are not outside our realm of perception, they are one of many interpretations of our various perceptions. I am asking you why the contemporary interpretation of our senses is correct, this question can't be answered by science, and I'm not asking science to answer it. If you can't justify science's premises you can't justifiably claim science as an accurate epistemic tool.