Kylie's Apple Challenge

[grasping the after wind]

Science tests objectively testable assumptions.

Why would you think that? Science, like any other form of inquiry, needs to begin with certain subjectively arrived at assumptions about the nature of reality. Once we accept those assumptions, we can engage in in scientific inquiry and feel confident in the conclusions we arrive at by using the scientific method. The process only becomes somewhat objective once we subjectively accept the assumptions that we base the process on.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Include the post I responded to if you
want a answer, svp.

I already posted it once. I'm not interested enough in your answer to do that extra work for you if you aren't interested enough in your own thought process to do it yourself.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Look at what the five senses tell us, and use that information to develop a hypothesis about what's going on.

You assume the five senses are reliable indicators of reality. You also assume that one can develop a reliable enough hypothesis about what is going on that it will be useful in revealing reality.

See if that hypothesis says that something will happen that our five senses can't detect (such as if an event will emit radio waves, for example).

You now assume that thought he five senses may be deficient in revealing all reality one can develop a method for discovering a way to reveal that which the five senses do not reveal

Construct a device to measure radio waves.

You now assume that it is possible to construct a device to measure something that your five senses cannot reveal and the yo have assumed exists despite this fact. I would like to know how one proposes to test the effectiveness of this measurements without making further assumptions.

Make the event happen and see if radio waves are detected.

You propose to measure something you assume exists by a device you assume will measure it.

If radio waves are detected, it is evidence that the hypothesis based on the five senses is correct. If radio waves are not detected, it is evidence the hypothesis is wrong, and the information provided by our five senses is flawed.

From what i can tell the hypothesis, and the device were not based upon the five senses but upon the fact the five senses did not detect something one assumed existed despite the fact that the five senses did not reveal the existence of the thing one assumed existed. I do not see that a device that cannot be verified as measuring something thing the five senses can detect independently is any more objectively reliable than a device to detect anything else one decides to exist. It is a process reminiscent of the ancients using a diving rod to detect water underground that they could not see, smell, hear, taste or feel. The biggest f difference being that, unlike radio waves, they had previously had the first hand experience of being able to feel , taste smell hear and see water above ground and therefore , trusting the five senses in implicitly , they were confident that water did indeed exist somewhere.

This is basic scientific method stuff.

I am a big fan of the scientific method, but I don't make the mistake of thinking it is void of basic assumptions that must be taken as a given based solely upon the purely subjective idea that they are self-evident. We deem them self-evident because there is no way to objectively prove them without first assuming that they are true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Think of it like ice. You can freeze water in a mold of a star, say, and when you take it out, it will be in the shape of a star. But you can melt that water, pout it into a spherical mold, and then refreeze it. The melting is a reset switch, there's no way to look at the sphere of ice and discover that it was previously a star shape. You can't look back before the melting event. Likewise, there is no way to look back before the Big Bang.

But, the shape of a star *is* a sphere.

 

[Estrid]

.

 

[Estrid]

I already posted it once. I'm not interested enough in your answer to do that extra work for you if you aren't interested enough in your own thought process to do it yourself.

Whatevs

 

[SelfSim]

But, the shape of a star *is* a sphere.

Pity we can't make our own emoticons.
This one might add more 'oomph' to that argument:

 

[SelfSim]

Why would you think that? Science, like any other form of inquiry, needs to begin with certain subjectively arrived at assumptions about the nature of reality. Once we accept those assumptions, we can engage in in scientific inquiry and feel confident in the conclusions we arrive at by using the scientific method. The process only becomes somewhat objective once we subjectively accept the assumptions that we base the process on.

There are several different meanings to an 'assumption'. For some, an 'assumption' means 'that which they take to be true', period. But in science, an 'assumption' just means 'that which we are pretending we regard as true for some practical purpose', like to achieve a useful approximation or idealization. We usually expect to relax our assumptions at some future time, and see how that complicates the picture.
That's the scientific way of thinking about 'assumptions', but philosophers tend to take their assumptions more seriously, which is why it is so important for scientists to not let any slip under the rug .. (Wouldn't want to be tainted with that brush, now would we?)

 

[grasping the after wind]

There are several different meanings to an 'assumption'. For some, an 'assumption' means 'that which they take to be true', period. But in science, an 'assumption' just means 'that which we are pretending we regard as true for some practical purpose', like to achieve a useful approximation or idealization. We usually expect to relax our assumptions at some future time, and see how that complicates the picture.
That's the scientific way of thinking about 'assumptions', but philosophers tend to take their assumptions more seriously, which is why it is so important for scientists to not let any slip under the rug .. (Wouldn't want to be tainted with that brush, now would we?)

I don't disagree with that. However, the underlying basic assumptions of science cannot be entirely discarded without it either becoming something other than science or making it impossible to study physical reality using the scientific method. To usefully employ the scientific method one must at the very least assume that the senses are at least somewhat reliable if not infallible or sufficient and that there is validity to the idea of cause and effect. Same would be true of any other method of exploring reality. If one does not assume something to be absolutely true, then one cannot employ reason to conclude anything about anything.

 

[durangodawood]

....To usefully employ the scientific method one must at the very least assume that the senses are at least somewhat reliable if not infallible or sufficient and that there is validity to the idea of cause and effect......

We experience sensory reliability enough that we dont have to assume it.

As for infallibility, no one assumes that, and so science has methods to account for limits of raw perception.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for infallibility, no one assumes that, and so science has methods to account for limits of raw perception.

But science can't cure its myopia, which is a limitation placed on it by God.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't disagree with that. However, the underlying basic assumptions of science cannot be entirely discarded without it either becoming something other than science or making it impossible to study physical reality using the scientific method.

.. which is a philosophical view on what science is up to .. (and not a scientific one) .. However I do agree, (philsophically speaking).

To usefully employ the scientific method one must at the very least assume that the senses are at least somewhat reliable if not infallible or sufficient and that there is validity to the idea of cause and effect. Same would be true of any other method of exploring reality. If one does not assume something to be absolutely true, then one cannot employ reason to conclude anything about anything.

Then maybe, the ongoing scientific enquiry might be viewed as being the test of that assumption(?)
The returns are so spectacularly successful (ie: highly useful) for humans, the ongoing test continues. Science is oblivious to all of that however .. because again, its a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[SelfSim]

As for infallibility, no one assumes that, and so science has methods to account for limits of raw perception.

The question arises: how might the limits one might poses as a criterion, be objectively tested for (ie: as existing)? Ie: in order to establish the objective existence of those limits?
Anything scientific thinking finds objectively untestable is a belief .. and so we are justified in classifying those limit criteria as being just that, ie: 'beliefs'.

 

[SelfSim]

But science can't cure its myopia, which is a limitation placed on it by God.

The 'myopia' assessment you make there, is totally dependent on your belief paradigm. It has no meaning without your personal embrace of beliefs by way of your own choice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pity we can't make our own emoticons.
This one might add more 'oomph' to that argument:

View attachment 322573

There are other things we can do with it...

 

[AV1611VET]

The 'myopia' assessment you make there, is totally dependent on your belief paradigm. It has no meaning without your personal embrace of beliefs by way of your own choice.

Science is either myopic or omniscient -- it can't be both.

I vote myopic.

If it helps any, science either knows everything or it doesn't -- it can't be both.

I vote it doesn't.

You can say that's just "my belief paradigm," but if you think science knows it all, you're wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

There are other things we can do with it...

Lol ..
I've grown very attached to your regular very dour, historic-looking Avatar. (It wouldn't be the real HansB without it, for me).

 

[Astrophile]

But science can't cure its myopia, which is a limitation placed on it by God.

Myopia in science, like myopia in humans, can be corrected by the use of properly shaped lenses, for example in telescopes and microscopes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Myopia in science, like myopia in humans, can be corrected by the use of properly shaped lenses,

Only to a point.

 

[SelfSim]

Science is either myopic or omniscient -- it can't be both.

I vote myopic.

If it helps any, science either knows everything or it doesn't -- it can't be both.

.. for you .. which is because of your penchant for excluding other than your own way of thinking .. (ie: Exclusionism).
So contradictory it is for you then, to include science's statements in your 'prime directive' decision making heuristic. Does this mean your other Biblical based criteria in it are therefore, myopic, when it comes to your to (supposedly) occasional selections of scientific findings, in the absence of Biblical guidance clauses?

I vote it doesn't.

You can say that's just "my belief paradigm," but if you think science knows it all, you're wrong.

One of your own 'QEDs' as far as a demonstration of your Exclusionism, there. You are often sooo willing to exclude yourself from being human, I often wonder if you think part of you might actually be that god of yours? Lol ..