William Shatner - Science is Science Fiction

[Fervent]

I edited no post that I know of. If I did edit it you could see a note saying that I did so. Which post are you referring to?

My mistake, though the post I was referring to is the one where you said evidence consists of brute facts. I must have misread it originally. Though I'm not sure where you're making a distinction since you claim evidence "consists" of brute facts, so since the dispute is what turns a brute fact into evidence(with me saying the supplying of a theory of meaning for the fact) I'm not sure where you're actually distinguishing between the two. So what separates a brute fact from evidence?

 

[Estrid]

That "background" is exactly the kind of theory I'm talking about. It's not simply the fact, but the combination of the fact itself and some argument for what the fact implies that makes something evidence. The issue is most of the time there's this mythological view of science that doesn't actually fit how it actually works that's appealed to, combined with terminology that has lagged behind conceptual understandings by about a century and a half. There's nothing arbitrary I am drawing, facts and evidence are not the same thing.

Really. Recognizing a toyota and knowing its not
a ford is theory? Theory? Oh, I hope you're kidding.

There is no "theory" in recognizing a cow bone, or
noticing if it still has raw meat on it.

No theory in anything I said.

You cannot expect anyone to take your criticism
of science seriously when your understanding does not even
extend to knowing the difference between a simple observation
and the use of a theory.

 

[Fervent]

Really. Recognizing a toyota and knowing its not
a ford is theory? Theory? Oh, I hope you're kidding.

There is no "theory" in recognizing a cow bone, or
noticing if it still has raw meat on it.

No theory in anything I said.

The mythology you refer to is not in science but your
notions about it.

Seriously, how do you propose to make mea meaningful
criticism of science with such a dim understanding as you
display in this response?

Yes, distinguishing between a Ford and a Toyota requires a theory of what a Ford or Toyota is. To someone who has no concept showing them pictures won't make any difference, it isn't until the explanation is supplied. What you are conflating is that there is a relationship between facts and evidence with treating them as the same thing. And I'm not interested in criticizing science, but the abuse of it to support metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Estrid]

Yes, distinguishing between a Ford and a Toyota requires a theory of what a Ford or Toyota is. To someone who has no concept showing them pictures won't make any difference, it isn't until the explanation is supplied. What you are conflating is that there is a relationship between facts and evidence with treating them as the same thing. And I'm not interested in criticizing science, but the abuse of it to support metaphysical naturalism.

As noted previously, that is not " theory ".
Plz review what thepry means in science and quit wasting
peoples time with your confusion.

 

[Fervent]

As noted previously, that is not " theory ".
Plz review what thepry means in science and quit wasting
peoples time with your confusion.

Science is not the only place where "theory" is defined, so your appeal to a technical definition is simply a nonsequitor.

 

[Estrid]

Science is not the only place where "theory" is defined, so your appeal to a technical definition is simply a nonsequitor.

“nonsequitur”

So you don’t know or don’t care that you
are misusing the word.
See “equivocation fallacy”.

 

[Fervent]

“nonsequitur”

So you don’t know or don’t care that you
are misusing the word.
See “equivocation fallacy”.

I'm not misusing the word, I'm using it in a general sense to convey a general meaning. Appealing to the technical scientific definition has no bearing on the discussion, just as if I were using it in the judicial sense the scientific sense wouldn't apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mistake, though the post I was referring to is the one where you said evidence consists of brute facts. I must have misread it originally. Though I'm not sure where you're making a distinction since you claim evidence "consists" of brute facts, so since the dispute is what turns a brute fact into evidence(with me saying the supplying of a theory of meaning for the fact) I'm not sure where you're actually distinguishing between the two. So what separates a brute fact from evidence?

I explained that already too. Evidence has to support or oppose a theory or hypothesis. There are all sorts of brute facts that do neither.

 

[Estrid]

I'm not misusing the word, I'm using it in a general sense to convey a general meaning. Appealing to the technical scientific definition has no bearing on the discussion, just as if I were using it in the judicial sense the scientific sense wouldn't apply.

Show me a definition that makes recognizing a honda a theory
Btw, didnt get just the spelling wrong, you got the meanjng
of nonsequitur wrong too.
No telling what "metaphysical naturalism" means.
Anyway, I cant talk sense to someone who plays equivocation
and makes up his meanimg for words.

 

[Fervent]

Show me a definition that makes recognizing a honda a theory
Btw, didnt get just the spelling wrong, you got the meanjng
of nonsequitur wrong too.
No telling what "metaphysical naturalism" means.
Anyway, I cant talk sense to someone who plays equivocation
and makes up his meanimg for words.

Now you're just presenting a strawman. The theory is the background information of what a "honda" is that informs the conclusion that something is a honda. It is the explanation of how it is recognized as a honda, as simply showing someone without a "theory of honda" would simply see a hunk of metal and rubber. And no, I didn't get the meaning wrong. Your usage of the technical definition of theory does not follow from the discussion at hand, it's a distraction that doesn't have anything to do with the center of discussion. The meaning I am using theory is not something I've made up but it is: an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. And given the level of understanding you've shown in this thread, I'd question your ability to talk sense outside of an echo chamber to begin with.

 

[Fervent]

I explained that already too. Evidence has to support or oppose a theory or hypothesis. There are all sorts of brute facts that do neither.

You're still using the wrong definition of theory, which considering I've explicitly stated that is not the definition I'm intending further insistence is simply not engaging with the conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're still using the wrong definition of theory, which considering I've explicitly stated that is not the definition I'm intending further insistence is simply not engaging with the conversation.

No, you are still using your own made up definition of theory. That is now how one communicates clearly. I made it clear from the start that I was using the scientific definition of theory and why other definitions do not apply in this conversation.

 

[Fervent]

No, you are still using your own made up definition of theory. That is now how one communicates clearly. I made it clear from the start that I was using the scientific definition of theory and why other definitions do not apply in this conversation.

Amazing that I was able to get a definition I made up on google's list of definition returns.

 

[timothyu]

Amazing that I was able to get a definition I made up on google's list of definition returns.

You mean the internet is a tool of misinformation? Who knew?

 

[Estrid]

You mean the internet is a tool of misinformation? Who knew?

The grim spectre of equivocation

 

[timothyu]

The grim spectre of equivocation

Which makes it the perfect tool for those seeking to justify their authority, who wish to keep the masses in confusion and divisive.

 

[Estrid]

Which makes it the perfect tool for those seeking to justify their authority, who wish to keep the masses in confusion and divisive.

I guess I will steer clear of that topic.

But on " theory" and "evidence," our friend has half of an idea.

A theory takes the brute facts and fits them into a bigger picture.

A corpse is evidence...of something
Anyone can see its dead.

Theory is that Prof Plum done it in the patlour with the candlestick

 

[Mark Quayle]

-​

science is like a big ole kettle of deception with just enough of truth measured out to hook and to keep people deceived. As of late though it does not need much truth, just bigger and bigger lies.

Of course that was accomplished when science was able to take over The Bible as mans trusted source of truth.

Being able to develop rockets that they can shoot up into the sky, has helped masterfully in furthering these deceptions.

Some of the same things that can be said of theology can also be said of science. Eg:

Everybody has a theology, whether they like theology or not. Everybody has a science, whether they disrespect science or not.

You trust science —we all do. Just not the science community. Or we are insane.

There's nothing wrong with science. Just with the people who do science.

 

[Estrid]

Amazing that I was able to get a definition I made up on google's list of definition returns.

A frog can be a hoppy amphibian, part of a violin or
some kind of bayonet thingy.
Which definition is suitable for discussion of gun equipment.

It is making things up to pretend the amphibian definition
applies to gun equipment.

 

[public hermit]

Everybody has a theology, whether they like theology or not. Everybody has a science, whether they disrespect science or not.

Aren't the boundaries within which scientific theories differ better defined than with theology? There are various cosmological theories among scientists, but there are fairly rigid boundaries within which they work. Whereas, theologies can be all over the place because so much is not known. The idea that everyone has a theology rings more true than the idea everyone has a science.

I mean, I don't consider what little scientific understanding I have to be my own construction, at all. There is much in my theology that is also not my construction, although some perhaps is, but there are so many ways it could have differed. My science understanding is what little I learned and what I hear the scientific community say, but it's not like I can change sciences. I don't even know what that would mean.