Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Fake Boris]

GePap, why don't you continue in the other thread? Tassadar is somewhat right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, yes, science..glad you bring that up..

Care to explain why we should listen to science, and not, say, faith, when thinking about the answers to a myriad of problems? After all, what is the value of empirical knowledge?

Interestingly enough, the validation of science is not a scientific answer at all, but a philosophical one.

Again, a blatant attempt to overcomplicate simple problems.

Scientific fact is so because it is observed to be true. There can be no valid argument made whatsoever against these facts.

When something can be repeatedly and consistently found to be absolutely true, it becomes a fact.

We listen to Science because it is undoubtedly true, at least for this world that we live in. Perhaps not so much scientific theories which are unsubstantiated, but certainly those that are. This takes precedence over faith or what Jim the Philosopher says, because it is obviously and inherently true in our world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
GePap, why don't you continue in the other thread? Tassadar is somewhat right.

He isn;t right at all. Threads get jacked every day-the thread began as a rant- not many places it can go. So what is the "arguement now"? The quality of teachers? That in itself is a Ming innitiated jack as well-so tass favors it? Good for him.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


He isn;t right at all. Threads get jacked every day-the thread began as a rant- not many places it can go. So what is the "arguement now"? The quality of teachers? That in itself is a Ming innitiated jack as well-so tass favors it? Good for him.

Well, I just feel like we could get some more people to join the heated discussion if we start a thread from the ground up. That way, Asher will be even more humiliated.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
When something can be repeatedly and consistently found to be absolutely true, it becomes a fact.

Hardly any scientist worth his salt would claim that such facts exist, for there is nothing we've found to be "absolutely" true. Science always makes caveats about such things. That's because of the philosophy behind science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher


Scientific fact is so because it is observed to be true. There can be no valid argument made whatsoever against these facts.

:LOL:
There have been plenty of arguements made against this. Lets begin with Plato's perfect fomrs, saying that everything in this world is merely a shadow,a representation of a perfect form elsewhere. Only if what you observe is actual truth, as opposed to, say, merely images created in your mind, can you assume this.

When something can be repeatedly and consistently found to be absolutely true, it becomes a fact.

You mean when something can be constantly rechecked and reaffirmed. nothing is absolutely true (though this of course, is just one philosophical position to take).

We listen to Science because it is undoubtedly true, at least for this world that we live in. Perhaps not so much scientific theories which are unsubstantiated, but certainly those that are. This takes precedence over faith or what Jim the Philosopher says, because it is obviously and inherently true in our world.

If SCIENCE is undoubtedly true", why do theories change over time?

Everything you said in this statement can be argued philosohpically, but it ininstructive in that it shows were you are coming from: you have created a bunch of rigd assumtions about the world which yo do not seek to question- no kidding you will be dismissive of a profession built on questioning things, even those that seem absolute.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
:LOL:
There have been plenty of arguements made against this. Lets begin with Plato's perfect fomrs, saying that everything in this world is merely a shadow,a representation of a perfect form elsewhere. Only if what you observe is actual truth, as opposed to, say, merely images created in your mind, can you assume this.

That's a lovely argument, but it's ridiculous because it's unsubtantiated. Do you not realize that my entire point is how ridiculous such arguments are?

You mean when something can be constantly rechecked and reaffirmed. nothing is absolutely true (though this of course, is just one philosophical position to take).

That's your opinion. I take the fact that gravity is an absolute fact for this planet. Others may disagree, but that's a semantical philosophical issue...

If SCIENCE is undoubtedly true", why do theories change over time?

I've already made an exception for unsubstantiated theories. Others, such as gravity, are undoubtedly true for our world.

Everything you said in this statement can be argued philosohpically, but it ininstructive in that it shows were you are coming from: you have created a bunch of rigd assumtions about the world which yo do not seek to question- no kidding you will be dismissive of a profession built on questioning things, even those that seem absolute.

Why on earth would I question things like gravity? Why should I question if some "evil genius" is controlling my thoughts? Do you not recognize this as trivial and useless behavior?

Brainpower should not be wasted on such crap. Enter a real field and better the world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Hardly any scientist worth his salt would claim that such facts exist, for there is nothing we've found to be "absolutely" true. Science always makes caveats about such things. That's because of the philosophy behind science.

So you would argue that gravity is not absolutely true?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

That's a lovely argument, but it's ridiculous because it's unsubtantiated. Do you not realize that my entire point is how ridiculous such arguments are?

That's your opinion. I take the fact that gravity is an absolute fact for this planet. Others may disagree, but that's a semantical philosophical issue...

Semantics matter, no matter how much you may whish to denigrate them. If you want to use terminology like "absolute turth", get of your ass and define it. Gravity is a fact. Facts simply are.

I've already made an exception for unsubstantiated theories. Others, such as gravity, are undoubtedly true for our world.

Why would gravity need to be a theory if it were "absolute truth"? This is were your refusal to accept that semantics matters gets you- to make stupid and easy to pick out logical mistakes. Gravity is the name we have given one of the physical forces we have thorugh empiral experimentation found to be working on matter in this universe.

Why on earth would I question things like gravity? Why should I question if some "evil genius" is controlling my thoughts? Do you not recognize this as trivial and useless behavior?

For most of human history no one ver asked why things fell- after all, why question this? Did they not recognize this was trivial and useless behavior? After all, so what , can knowing why things fall allow you to stop making them fall? Thanfully, some people have more imagination and curiosity than you.

Brainpower should not be wasted on such crap. Enter a real field and better the world.

The very field you have joined exist purely thanks to the work of men labelled philosophy. For 95% of human history, very very few fields of endevour existed. Thank your lucky starts someone started "wasting their time" with sueless tuff like thinkking instead of being out there bettering the world through agriculture, the priesthood, pottery, or war.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher

So you would argue that gravity is not absolutely true?

There are two issues here. On the one hand, there's gravity itself. And you can ask yourself if it exists or not. No one doubts that it exists. On the other, there's our theories about gravity. And you can ask yourself if they are true or not. Descartes had a theory about gravity. Newton had his. And now we have Einstein's. I don't know of any scientist who would claim that we have found the True theory of gravity.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
So you would argue that gravity is not absolutely true?

It may not be. We may be held on the Earth by some other force. There have actually been many competing theories lately about gravity, and it's becoming clear that Newton didn't have the last word on it.

The bottom line is that no scientist goes around saying something is 100% certain. Maybe 99.9% certain, yes, but they will always hedge their bets, because too often has something that's been accepted as scientific fact been later shown to be wrong or not the whole story. Einstein's work with relativity ably demonstrates this point.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Semantics matter, no matter how much you may whish to denigrate them. If you want to use terminology like "absolute turth", get of your ass and define it. Gravity is a fact. Facts simply are.

The position wasn't that semantics don't matter, but basing entire arguments upon semantics is a waste of time.

Why would gravity need to be a theory if it were "absolute truth"? This is were your refusal to accept that semantics matters gets you- to make stupid and easy to pick out logical mistakes. Gravity is the name we have given one of the physical forces we have thorugh empiral experimentation found to be working on matter in this universe.

It was a theory before it was accepted as fact. It's no longer refered to as the Theory of Gravity, but the Universal Law of Gravitation.

For most of human history no one ver asked why things fell- after all, why question this? Did they not recognize this was trivial and useless behavior? After all, so what , can knowing why things fall allow you to stop making them fall? Thanfully, some people have more imagination and curiosity than you.

Argh. I wonder why Philosophers always claim Newton was a Philosopher? Newton was a scientist, not a philosopher.

I'm not sure why you're trying to use gravity as an example of philosophy being useful. Is it because 10 millenia before Newton did his studies, some fat philosopher pondered "why did things fall?" and somehow gets credit for it all?

The very field you have joined exist purely thanks to the work of men labelled philosophy. For 95% of human history, very very few fields of endevour existed. Thank your lucky starts someone started "wasting their time" with sueless tuff like thinkking instead of being out there bettering the world through agriculture, the priesthood, pottery, or war.

This is a worthless argument, and I thought you were part of the last thread where this was dismissed. My argument is based upon current philosophy, which is VERY different from Philosophy 1000 years ago.

I'll thank you to stick to the subject at hand.

[Ben Kenobi]

For example, this means jack-**** to non-philosophers:

I'm not a philosopher, and I understood what Agathon meant.

It could be you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by nostromo
There are two issues here. On the one hand, there's gravity itself. And you can ask yourself if it exists or not. No one doubts that it exists. On the other, there's our theories about gravity. And you can ask yourself if they are true or not. Descartes had a theory about gravity. Newton had his. And now we have Einstein's. I don't know of any scientist who would claim that we have found the True theory of gravity.

I'm referring to the existence of gravity, not the cause of.

No one doubts that it exists -- so therefore, is it not correct to say it's existence is absolutely certain?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not a philosopher, and I understood what Agathon meant.

It could be you.

It's rather ambiguous, actually. The wording was exceptionally poor.

Good is not defined. "Aggregation" is a really poor word choice, as well.