By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
We first form a hypothesis (read myth) and then test it via experiment.
The absence of experimental evidence that falsifies the hypothesis then allows it to stand, unless new evidence subsequently emerges in future.
Bollox. Metals were discovered by accident when metal bearing ores were left next to fires back the stone age and the metal ran out when the rock was heated. We have been learning since we were apes. Are you gong to turn this into a semantic discussion?
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 10:46 - Jan 19 with 1953 views
You havent explained to me why I was wrong. Science is practical application of empirical theory. We learn through experiment.
heres my statement. Why is it wrong.
Science isn't something we invented, its something we discovered. Its just a summary of what we have learned so far.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 10:38]
As for the edited bits I did tell you exactly that.
We (read mankind) invented the scientific approach which invites criticism of theories. It emerged in ancient Greece!
Science is not 'a summary of what we have learned so far' because it **all** remains subject to challenge and revision, as science progresses. A more correct way of looking at would be as a set of assumptions.
Bollox. Metals were discovered by accident when metal bearing ores were left next to fires back the stone age and the metal ran out when the rock was heated. We have been learning since we were apes. Are you gong to turn this into a semantic discussion?
I said usually.
As Popper observes, tell scientists to go out and observe the world and see what they come up with other than a bunch of postcards.
As for the edited bits I did tell you exactly that.
We (read mankind) invented the scientific approach which invites criticism of theories. It emerged in ancient Greece!
Science is not 'a summary of what we have learned so far' because it **all** remains subject to challenge and revision, as science progresses. A more correct way of looking at would be as a set of assumptions.
I said so far , which makes it subject to change.
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 10:48 - Jan 19 with 1963 views
Well that is not the way I read it, but as long as you agree with the position I set out there is no problem.
If I share your view I'm not agreeing with you we just share a view. thing is I share a view with Popper, not you. When hes next on here tell him to look me up.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 10:51]
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 10:57 - Jan 19 with 1945 views
If I share your view I'm not agreeing with you we just share a view. thing is I share a view with Popper, not you. When hes next on here tell him to look me up.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 10:51]
You're a deeply arrogant individual., did you know that?
Somebody like Newton acknowledged that he stood on the shoulders of giants. He was aware of the debt of gratitude he owed to those who went before him and built the knowledge he had at his disposal.
Conversely you think you developed whatever knowledge you have all by virtue of you own personal brilliance.
You're a deeply arrogant individual., did you know that?
Somebody like Newton acknowledged that he stood on the shoulders of giants. He was aware of the debt of gratitude he owed to those who went before him and built the knowledge he had at his disposal.
Conversely you think you developed whatever knowledge you have all by virtue of you own personal brilliance.
Its arrogant to suggest you know what I think. Its arrogant to to tell someone they are wrong, not give a valid reason why, accuse them of chickening out of a discussion and then spout off other people ideas as their own. All discussions with you end the same way. If you don't want to converse with such an arrogant individual, you know what to do.
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 11:12]
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 11:25 - Jan 19 with 1903 views
Heres my take on it when my Mam was in the last stages of her battle with cancer we all drew great strength from her faith she was happy to go because she was going to see her Mam and Dad again in fact the last hours she was seeing them both with a angel I expect some will say it was her meds but for us it was so comforting that she was in this place now if you have no faith would you get that comfort on your death bed
Also years back I worked as a Hospital porter and had a call to go to the childrens ward well what was waiting for me was a young child who had sadly passed away I had to wheel the nurse in a wheelchair as she cradled the little child and take him to the mortuary when we opened before we placed the baby in the fridge she kissed the baby on the head I also did with tears streaming down my face to this day I pray that I will see this child again and hold him
The little lad lost his Mum and Dad in a car crash a few days previous I later found out and he sadly lost his battle surrounded by Nurses as sadly that was his only family taken from him to this day I think of him every day and pray for him and his Mum and Dad
Some will say im daft but I know there is an afterlife
1
Life after Death on 14:17 - Jan 19 with 1843 views
I just figured out who shaky reminds me of, its the guy in this scene from about 1 min 20 seconds in.( the long haired chap)
Yeah, yeah, and you're Ben Affleck and Matt Damon rolled into one, except for the fact that you only came up with your punch line several hours after the event.
Now listen up; the accusation that I am somehow guilty of plagiarism is as laughable as it is bizarre. Go back a page or two and take note of where I linked to the name of the book and author I was basing my arguments on, and how I subsequently stated I would expound on them.
Attributing or sourcing your arguments rather than passing off the work of others as your own is what is known as intellectual honesty, don't you know?
I'll admit to having little patience with arguments I know to be transparently unsustainable. No doubt that is symptomatic of a certain arrogance, but is also a reflection of the fact that I have only limited time.
However, I don't in any way consider that offering specific information on how to obtain knowledge and perspective is in any way one of my character flaws. Sorry.
Heres my take on it when my Mam was in the last stages of her battle with cancer we all drew great strength from her faith she was happy to go because she was going to see her Mam and Dad again in fact the last hours she was seeing them both with a angel I expect some will say it was her meds but for us it was so comforting that she was in this place now if you have no faith would you get that comfort on your death bed
Also years back I worked as a Hospital porter and had a call to go to the childrens ward well what was waiting for me was a young child who had sadly passed away I had to wheel the nurse in a wheelchair as she cradled the little child and take him to the mortuary when we opened before we placed the baby in the fridge she kissed the baby on the head I also did with tears streaming down my face to this day I pray that I will see this child again and hold him
The little lad lost his Mum and Dad in a car crash a few days previous I later found out and he sadly lost his battle surrounded by Nurses as sadly that was his only family taken from him to this day I think of him every day and pray for him and his Mum and Dad
Some will say im daft but I know there is an afterlife
OK, you're daft!
Now how do you know there's an afterlife cos if you do actually know for sure then you should really tell us which facts that knowledge is based upon so we know for sure too
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 19:31]
0
Life after Death on 19:33 - Jan 19 with 1736 views
I'll admit to having little patience with arguments I know to be transparently unsustainable. No doubt that is symptomatic of a certain arrogance, but is also a reflection of the fact that I have only limited time.
However, I don't in any way consider that offering specific information on how to obtain knowledge and perspective is in any way one of my character flaws. Sorry.
So my argument that science is a summary of what we have learned so far is an unsustainable argument, even though that's precisely what it is?
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 19:41 - Jan 19 with 1714 views
So my argument that science is a summary of what we have learned so far is an unsustainable argument, even though that's precisely what it is?
More precisely it is an incorrect statement of the position, since according to the customary use of language the term 'learned' implies something that is fixed.
Today we have learned that 2+2=4.
We will not learn tomorrow that say 2+2=5.
However, with Science we may indeed realise tomorrow that everything we thought we knew was wrong. Not only that, but it is in fact the mission of science to try to prove just that though the principle of falsification.
The spirit of scientific discovery is about expanding the frontiers of knowledge and understanding, not sitting smugly congratulating ourselves on how f*cking clever we are -- know what I mean?
More precisely it is an incorrect statement of the position, since according to the customary use of language the term 'learned' implies something that is fixed.
Today we have learned that 2+2=4.
We will not learn tomorrow that say 2+2=5.
However, with Science we may indeed realise tomorrow that everything we thought we knew was wrong. Not only that, but it is in fact the mission of science to try to prove just that though the principle of falsification.
The spirit of scientific discovery is about expanding the frontiers of knowledge and understanding, not sitting smugly congratulating ourselves on how f*cking clever we are -- know what I mean?
[Post edited 19 Jan 2014 19:43]
Learn means "aquisition of knowledge". Science is knowledge. You are wrong on all counts. try again.
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
