You have completely misunderstood the metaphor. Read it again and if you still don't get it, let me know, because honestly, that's about as clear as I can make it.Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius
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.
Not true. How can you perceive that \"our percpetions at this moment (which is all we have to referece) are just a random occurance before our consciousness\"? You can't. In order to make the claim that the continuity of events which we perceive as the flow of life are not, in fact, continuous, but rather random but with the momentary illusion of continuity, you much have knowledge outside of perception. You have to be able to detect that random flickering, because, what you perceive is continuous.Quote:
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.[/b]
I have justified science's premises repeatedly and well within the realm of human perception (to all, it appears, but you). What you have been asking me to do is justify science from some perspective unavailable to the human senses (some perspective of "the ultimate reality to which we mere humans are not privy due to our limited perception") , which is, by definition, impossible. The realm of science is perceivable, physical reality. It is the box. You cannot perceive what is outside of the box, and yet you are asking me to justify science from a perspective that is outside of science (i.e. outside of the box). That is utter nonsense.Quote:
If you can't justify science's premises you can't justifiably claim science as an accurate epistemic tool.[/b]
You can never prove what you have proposed about perceived reality being nothing but an illusion that is so perfect as to give no perception of being an illusion at all. In fact, I'm not even asking for proof, because proof is a very tricky and subjective thing. I'm asking for evidence, and you have not once, regardless of my requests, offered any. One cannot prove a negative and that is what you are asking me to do. "Prove that all of this is not some great and perfect illusion." It is not my job to prove the unprovable, give evidence against something that you have already defined as unperceivable and non-experiential. That would require knowledge outside of perception and, as you have already agreed, that is impossible.
So quit with the double standard. I'm not playing this child's game any more, Belisarius. Either you come up with some evidence to support your belief, or admit that such idle speculation as that in which you engage is pointless. The only thing for which you have given sufficient evidence is your utter lack of understanding of scientific principles and purpose. I have tried to explain them to you, but you have ignored my attempts in favor of repeating your inane claims.
If this hoax/illusion which you propose exists (for which, I will repeat, you have given absolutely no evidence) is indistinguishable perceptually from a physical reality in which all is as it seems, then neither you nor me nor any human pursuit, which by necessity is bound by the limits of human perception, can EVER offer proof one way or another. However, since one cannot prove a negative (namely, that there is no outside hoax), it is left to you to prove the positive (that there is an outside hoax). Since, as we have both agreed that there can be no knowledge outside of perception, and evidence of such a perfect hoax would necessitate knowledge beyond perception, I think you'll have a interesting time handling this. So, Belisarius, come up with evidence, or desist.
Science is valid regardless of any outside, unperceivable reality which may or may not exist (since, as I have repeatedly explained, science seeks to describe perceivable, physical reality, not that which may or may not exist outside of perception and is therefore unavailable to human knowledge). So it does not matter anyway, but since you refuse to give it up, fess up. Offer evidence or leave this discussion. Only if you can offer evidence - only if you can offer some perception which indicates that physical reality is a result of some illusory hoax - can your claim of science being flawed be valid. If it is not perceivable, it does not affect the validity of science. Period. If you can prove that there is some phenomena which is in opposition to contemporary scientific theory and offers some evidence of your "outside reality," we can talk. But as you've defined this "outside reality," it is non-experiential and not in any way perceivable. If that is the case, you have no absolutely beef against science because science does exactly as it promises and strives to do, which is to describe perceivable, physical reality So which is it, Belisarius? Do you have evidence of this "outside reality" or not? If yes, we’ll talk. If not, this discussion is over.