Do You Believe In Scientism?

[Kylie]

Love your response there @Kylie .. I'm smiling!
Spoken like a truly rational, subjective reasoner there .. Does that mean you're actually a human?
(Emoticon there is just me kidding around .. don't take me too seriously).

Human? I'm a clone of a person, and I come from the planet Fleebos IX. Since I'm a clone of a person, I suppose that means I'm technically human...

 

[VirOptimus]

I mean objective as in something that exists outside of me. I am objectively sitting in a chair right now, for example. It is also an objective fact that the sun and Earth orbit their barycenter.

Subjective is more an opinion. I think Star trek is better than Star Wars, for example. That's a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

When it comes to finding out objective facts about our universe, science is the best, and I'd say the only tool we have.

But things like morality are subjective. One person might think it's acceptable for murderers to be given the death penalty, but other people might not. There's no objective way to really show which point of view is correct.

I understand your meaning, but my point is that subjective/objective is impossible. We can only experience things through ourself as an agent, in your words subjective. Objective is for me a religious term.

Facts are facts, they are neither subjective or objective.

And its a fact that Star Wars is objectively better than Star Trek. May the force make you live long and prosper.

 

[SelfSim]

Human? I'm a clone of a person, and I come from the planet Fleebos IX. Since I'm a clone of a person, I suppose that means I'm technically human...

Sorry that does not compute! .. Warning Will Robinson! ..
There's no Fleebos IX in the official register of planets!

(Now there's that problem sorted .. .. "Next!?" ..)

 

[SelfSim]

.. We can only experience things through ourself as an agent,

Huh? What does that even mean?
I must be a (very) thin client/agent!

And its a fact that Star Wars is objectively better than Star Trek. May the force make you live long and prosper.

No way .. Blasphemy!

 

[durangodawood]

...And its a fact that Star Wars is objectively better than Star Trek. May the force make you live long and prosper.

How rude!

 

[VirOptimus]

How rude!

Facts are facts!

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Kylie]

I understand your meaning, but my point is that subjective/objective is impossible. We can only experience things through ourself as an agent, in your words subjective. Objective is for me a religious term.

Facts are facts, they are neither subjective or objective.

If the fact is as true for me as it is for you, then it is objective. You are technically correct in that it depends on there being an external reality that exists independently from us, but I think that's a safe enough assumption to make.

But when I think that we can justifiably say that there are something things we can take as objective fact. The value of pi, for instance. It's going to be the same for anyone who measures it.

And its a fact that Star Wars is objectively better than Star Trek. May the force make you live long and prosper.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry that does not compute! .. Warning Will Robinson! ..
There's no Fleebos IX in the official register of planets!

(Now there's that problem sorted .. .. "Next!?" ..)

Of course, not if you go by that silly HUMAN list!

 

[Kylie]

That is exactly what would happen.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is exactly what would happen.

When the Enterprise fires torpedoes at the Death Star near the end, they should have cut briefly Luke's shot entering the Death Star ventilation shaft.

Otherwise, very nicely done.

 

[SelfSim]

If the fact is as true for me as it is for you, then it is objective. You are technically correct in that it depends on there being an external reality that exists independently from us, but I think that's a safe enough assumption to make.

There's no need for that assumption there. (Letting it slip in, opens the door for lots of others, unfortunately ..)

But when I think that we can justifiably say that there are something things we can take as objective fact. The value of pi, for instance. It's going to be the same for anyone who measures it.

It takes an in-common human mind type to think in objective ways then .. (Not sure about Fleebos IX-ians though ..)

 

[Kylie]

There's no need for that assumption there. (Letting it slip in, opens the door for lots of others, unfortunately ..)

If we can't even agree that reality exists, there is no basis for any discussion whatsoever.

It takes an in-common human mind type to think in objective ways then .. (Not sure about Fleebos IX-ians though ..)

Are you suggesting that if we were to think in a different way that Pi would have a different value?

 

[sjastro]

That is exactly what would happen.

How the heck do Heisenberg compensators work?
Perhaps it requires a belief in the power of the Force.

 

[Kylie]

How the heck do Heisenberg compensators work?
Perhaps it requires a belief in the power of the Force.

I believe they use the principle of the Plot Device to carry out their function.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

How the heck do Heisenberg compensators work?
Perhaps it requires a belief in the power of the Force.

That's for you mathematicians to work out.

 

[SelfSim]

If we can't even agree that reality exists, there is no basis for any discussion whatsoever.

But we can agree on the way we decide upon what 'exists' means there .. thus we can agree.
(I suspect we are in agreement, too .. as long as dictionary definitions aren't considered as being true definitions, that is).

Are you suggesting that if we were to think in a different way that Pi would have a different value?

Different (human) minds think in different ways on the same observation.
Desriptions of a rock, (for eg), being observed by different humans, can demonstrate the evidence supporting that conclusion. Discarding any of those descriptions, leads towards a more biased conclusion.
What a 'rock is' therefore, (rock=exists), depends upon agreement of like thinking human minds.

A Fleebos-ian mind however, might give us further insights on 'exists' from their observing minds' viewpoint (which would be neat). Ever seen this movie?

 

[sjastro]

I believe they use the principle of the Plot Device to carry out their function.

You speak a foreign language to me, much like trying to explain science to creationists in this forum.

 

[SelfSim]

You speak a foreign language to me, much like trying to explain science to creationists in this forum.

I suspect she's really a human hiding out behind the: 'I'm from the planet Fleebos' line ..
We'll eventually uncover the real truth though ..

 

[SelfSim]

Are you suggesting that if we were to think in a different way that Pi would have a different value?

Different (human) minds think in different ways on the same observation.

Purely for completeness sake, and so I can openly dodge the obvious 'shifting the goalposts' exposure, (due to my using the simplified 'rock' example), I offer this load of total gobbledygook as an example of someone who appears to be seriously attempting to argue that the value of pi is 4, thus demonstrating the different way his mind works in coming up with an alternate value of pi.

Be warned! Miles Mathis is a reknowned web crackpot .. but his 'proofs' are not simply identified as frauds from casual perusal. This post might be better off being a separate thread in the Non-Mainstream forum, actually.

Abstract: I show that in all kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static or geometric situations. I am analyzing the equivalent of an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. I will also remind you this is not just a theory: it has been indicated by many mainstream experiments, including rocketry tests and quantum experiments (see links below). It has also now been proven by my own experiments (see link below).