Right there, in black and white. . .

[JediMobius]

At one time, the world was convinced the Earth lay at the centre of the universe. The sun and stars seemed to revolve around a central point. The North Star, no matter what time of night, no matter what time of year, could always be found in the same spot on a cloudless night. So it would seem, if that point of light always stayed in place, there’s no way the Earth could be moving, nor could anyone feel the earth moving.

It’s no wonder the world arrived at such conclusions. People were simply working from the limited information they were presented with, and logic filled in the blanks.

Of course, it was eventually discovered that, not only was the earth moving simultaneously in two separate fashions, it is even on a tilt. The stars seem to stay in place (though they’re in motion as well) because the vast distance between our solar system and the rest of the universe makes any change in a star’s position infinitesimally small on the scale at which we see them.

In spite of this and other such examples of human kind proving its past self wrong, the collective ego tends to trump any reasonable tendency toward open-minded analysis. Granted, technology has expanded at an amazing rate, allowing us to gather new information we never before would have had access to. What once was gathered into one blanket subject called “Science” is presently so vast, very few scientists are experts in more than one field. However, we still don’t have all the information. Research constantly yields new results. Particles have been divided into smaller parts, which in turn can also be divided into smaller and smaller parts. The infinite nature of the universe goes both ways.

I have often gone on rampages in various forums about what is true, what is false, what is in fact not what everyone thinks it is. Who hasn’t? Whatever the issue is, be it the big bang theory, the theory of evolution, creationism, free masonry conspiracy, politics, religion, faith, global banking, the ever approaching and encroaching end of this world, or even existence itself, many a debater on each side is dead right, the other side is dead wrong.

By now, everyone should realize that certainty is relative and abstract at best. Too often we set conclusions based off of a small percentage of the overall information. Even if a Fact is discovered from all the available information, we simply don’t have the instruments or capacity to collect all the data there is. Whoever designed the Scientific Method must have taken all this into account. From hypothesis to theory to law, none of these are defined as fact. Regardless, the average abnormal person starts with his own mindset, and adopts whatever information fits his own personal mold as Fact.

I hope you will take this into account the next time you take a side.

 

[The Nihilist]

Actually, everyone starts with his own mindset and collects only data that agrees with him, so says Francis Bacon. It is only through rigorous methodology that this can be prevented reliably.
But I don't see why you think what you say is generally relevant regarding arguments. I mean, that's what I assume the last line is warning against. Because, while everything science knows may be false, there is a sort of conventional way in which this isn't a problem.

 

[JediMobius]

Actually, everyone starts with his own mindset and collects only data that agrees with him, so says Francis Bacon. It is only through rigorous methodology that this can be prevented reliably.

Look at 'evolution' vs. creationism. There is quite a bit of data used by each side of the debate. (obviously also a lot of data only used by one or the other) Members of each line of thought maintain the other side is doing too much to make the pieces fit together their way.

Even through rigorous methodology, no conclusions can really be drawn. It's impossible to gather all data. Only a better understanding can be achieved, an understanding still subject to human error and interpretation.

But I don't see why you think what you say is generally relevant regarding arguments. I mean, that's what I assume the last line is warning against.

I think it's relevant to every perceived reality or truth. In even the simplest argument, sides are taken. When those sides dig in, it becomes increasingly harder for one to accept data that conflicts with his stance, lest he be proven wrong.

Beyond that, we arrive at conclusions all the time concerning every subject from everyday things to global and universal truths. These conclusions are inescapably based off limited data. Thus each conclusion, in actuality, is inconclusive. These false conclusions are then carried over into an argument which otherwise could be a level discussion.

Because, while everything science knows may be false, there is a sort of conventional way in which this isn't a problem.

Hmmm. Please, elaborate on this conventional way in which it isn't a problem.

 

[The Nihilist]

Hmmm. Please, elaborate on this conventional way in which it isn't a problem.

You kind of sound like a Sceptic, the most hated and feared of all of the philosopher's natural enemies. I say this because it seems to me that your position is essentially that there can be no real knowledge. I don't think you're taking it as far as, say, Descartes did, and denying even expieriential knowledge, but you are denying the possibility of some knowledge, it seems to me. However, without agreeing or disagreeing with you, I would claim that your charge isn't really relevant, because one of the major caveats in the modern search for knowledge is that all conclusions are provisional and subject to change. This is built into the very methodology of science, wherein conclusions are maintained as long as they are useful and discarded afterwards. Moreover, there are certain criteria necessary, such as testability, verifiability, and that sort of thing. This is the reason that both creationism and intelligent design are rejected as science, because they do not meet these criteria. For further reading, I suggest Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.