How could you falsify macroevolution?

[Nostromo]

Back on topic... Natural selection? I refute it thus... Monica is proof of intelligent design

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Boy, don't you get it yet bozo? This is a metaphysical discussion on the nature of truth that can be attained empirically. NOt a technical one.

This is somewhat rich from the guy who only a few posts ago was talking about what might ever be useful to anyone in this universe.

Oh, and please stop calling one another bozos. It's an insult to clowns everywhere.

[KrazyHorse]

Forget it, LC.

You can't argue with somebody who doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Now, tell me just what you are getting at now. You started out defending che's attack on Popper, shifted to debating the paedagogical failings of the term "falsifiable", then apparently tried to argue that science can get all the way to the ultimate laws of the universe, and now you seem to be saying that science should stop when it's discovered everything useful, however one is supposed to know that - how do you know that there isn't some wonderful application hiding a mere TeV beyond your present experimental apparatus? It's hard to avoid the impression you're moving position rather rapidly.

On one level, I like simply forcing people to explain themselves better...

On another level, never have I said ANYTHING about no longer doing further experimentation. Please quote me on it- you will see that nowhere do I say such a silly thing.

What I am asking is whether there is a point at which one can proclaim that through empirical methods we can attain a similar certainty to our collective knowledge that the folks who hold revealed truth have with theirs. Is there a point at which the scientific community would be willing to stand and proclaim "we KNOW", as opposed to "look how good our current model is, isn't it neato!" It mean, it does seem rather strange for people like KH to be both arrogant of their "knowledge", and then speak about how ignorant he really is at the end. Maybe that situation calls for less arrogance?

Lets not forget how this thread began- currently at least in the US there is a backlash amongsts a substantial sector of the population aainst empircally based knowledge. And most human beings probably know little or care little for it either. So can empiricism hold forth any hope for people of enlightenment, or merely show them just how ingorant they are bound to be eternaly?

[KrazyHorse]

On one level, I like simply forcing people to explain themselves better

Ah, the ultimate fallback position.

"I didn't mean any of it; I was just playing Devil's Advocate"

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

On one level, I like simply forcing people to explain themselves better

Ah, the ultimate fallback position.

"I didn't mean any of it; I was just playing Devil's Advocate"

I like playing devils adovcate.

Of course, you were foolish enough to think that ANYTHING of what I have said even implied ending further scientific research.

[KrazyHorse]

I never said you wanted to end scientific research, GePap.

I said that you claimed that there would be a point where you could state with certainty that further research was meaningless to your definition of the truth.

I then demonstrated that you were wrong and laughed at you. Then I made fun of you for spinning like a top to distance yourself from your previously-held positions. Then I wrote this post. Now I'm going to hit submit and bask in my victory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I never said you wanted to end scientific research, GePap.

I said that you claimed that there would be a point where you could state with certainty that further research was meaningless to your definition of the truth.

I then demonstrated that you were wrong and laughed at you. Then I made fun of you for spinning like a top to distance yourself from your previously-held positions. Then I wrote this post. Now I'm going to hit submit and bask in my victory.

If I had spoken about "my definition" of the truth, there is no logical way in which you could have disproven anything, since the arguement would be based on my definition.

Its like claiming you could disprove that something was not the color Breen, after I labelled it as such and defined it to be that color.

What I stated is that I do not swallow the metaphysical notion that a metaphysical truth can't be reached empirically by definition.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


On one level, I like simply forcing people to explain themselves better...

On another level, never have I said ANYTHING about no longer doing further experimentation. Please quote me on it- you will see that nowhere do I say such a silly thing.

It seemed the logical conclusion from the notion of having as good approximations as might ever be useful.

What I am asking is whether there is a point at which one can proclaim that through empirical methods we can attain a similar certainty to our collective knowledge that the folks who hold revealed truth have with theirs.

Short answer: No.

Is there a point at which the scientific community would be willing to stand and proclaim "we KNOW", as opposed to "look how good our current model is, isn't it neato!" It mean, it does seem rather strange for people like KH to be both arrogant of their "knowledge", and then speak about how ignorant he really is at the end. Maybe that situation calls for less arrogance?

Hierarchy is relative - being ignorant is no obstacle to feeling superior if the others are even more ignorant, and stupid and conceited to boot.

Lets not forget how this thread began- currently at least in the US there is a backlash amongsts a substantial sector of the population aainst empircally based knowledge. And most human beings probably know little or care little for it either. So can empiricism hold forth any hope for people of enlightenment, or merely show them just how ingorant they are bound to be eternaly?

It holds no such hope.

It's only selling argument to those who see no beauty in it is that its ignorance gave us penicilin where the certainty of revelation gave us the laying of hands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
It seemed the logical conclusion from the notion of having as good approximations as might ever be useful.

I never said useful. I said relevant. Something can be useful but irrelevant.

EDIT: note, I said usefull before...note the difference

Hierarchy is relative - being ignorant is no obstacle to feeling superior if the others are even more ignorant, and stupid and conceited to boot.

I will agree with you there.

It's only selling argument to those who see no beauty in it is that its ignorance gave us penicilin where the certainty of revelation gave us the laying of hands.

Nice way to phrase that

[Last Conformist]

How can something be useful and irrelevant at once?

Anway, I'm going to bed. Good night.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap




If I had spoken about "my definition" of the truth, there is no logical way in which you could have disproven anything, since the arguement would be based on my definition.

Its like claiming you could disprove that something was not the color Breen, after I labelled it as such and defined it to be that color.

Actually, it's like claiming that I disproved something was Breen after you labelled the colour breen as being in the range of wavelengths from 200-300 nanometers. Just because I allow you to make a definition doesn't imply that I cannot disprove assertions you make based on that definition.

You defined Truth as a sufficiently good understanding of all situations which human beings would come into contact with. You then said that there would be some point in the future where we could say that we had the Truth. I demonstrated that further scientific research would bring more exotic situations into contact with human beings through technology, some of which might not be well-explained by your earlier understanding, thus your Truth would still be out of reach.

[KrazyHorse]

GePap, you've proceeded from not understanding science to not understanding basic logic.

Way to go, son.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
How can something be useful and irrelevant at once?

A hose collar is very usefull, but if no one has a ahorse, it is irrelevant.

[KrazyHorse]

Night night, my little GePap.