How much data do you require before you accept something as "fact"?
-
Yeh it is.
Proving that a scientific theory is wrong means we don't understand enough about the thing. And we know we need to look at other theories about the thing.
Proving things wrong as well as failed hypothesis is as important (even if it is disappointing) as proving things correct and successful hypothesis. It rules the theory out, and guides further scientific study.
With published papers, other scientists can hopefully see what the publishing scientists missed.
Scientists can also repeat experiments of successful papers to confirm the papers conclusion, and perhaps even make further observations that can support further studies.You may want to read what I said and try again.
-
Sorry, I overestimated the level of your reading comprehension. Let me offer you some help here, since you clearly need it. You will note that my comment said,
given that unicorns aren’t objectively real
and
given that unicorns aren’t real
so your question was directly and deliberately answered twice in the negative in the context of defending my overall position, which you outright claimed I was unwilling to do.
P.S.: Oh, sorry, I have probably still made things too complicated for your simplistic mind, haven't I? Let me make it even simpler for you, since are so desperate for an answer, and for some reason you think I am authority on this subject: no, unicorns aren't real.
no, unicorns aren’t real.
Then why are you arguing that the spring is?
Oh right, because you are a pseudo intellectual who is full of shit.
Take care
-
no, unicorns aren’t real.
Then why are you arguing that the spring is?
Oh right, because you are a pseudo intellectual who is full of shit.
Take care
Quoth my earlier comment:
obviously if the spring does not exist then it cannot be drunk from.
-
Quoth my earlier comment:
obviously if the spring does not exist then it cannot be drunk from.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a spring in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able to drink from it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like a spring in the desert.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a
springunicorn in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able todrink frompet it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like aspringunicorn in the desert. -
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a spring in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able to drink from it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like a spring in the desert.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a
springunicorn in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able todrink frompet it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like aspringunicorn in the desert.Congratulations, you have just quoted me saying that the spring might not be real, and the "might" is there because, if you are lucky, then you may very well have been fortunate enough to have come across an actual oasis in the distance rather than a mere mirage.
The second quote is your own fabrication and has nothing to do with anything I have argued because unicorns, unlike oases, are not even sometimes really there.
-
Congratulations, you have just quoted me saying that the spring might not be real, and the "might" is there because, if you are lucky, then you may very well have been fortunate enough to have come across an actual oasis in the distance rather than a mere mirage.
The second quote is your own fabrication and has nothing to do with anything I have argued because unicorns, unlike oases, are not even sometimes really there.
The fact that there is word for this experience demonstrates that the experience itself objectively exists, which only serves to prove my point.
-
The fact that there is word for this experience demonstrates that the experience itself objectively exists, which only serves to prove my point.
Yes, that word being mirage, which is so objectively real that you can take a photograph of it:
In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer's location. What the image appears to represent, however, is determined by the interpretive faculties of the human mind. For example, inferior images on land are very easily mistaken for the reflections from a small body of water.
-
Yes, that word being mirage, which is so objectively real that you can take a photograph of it:
In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer's location. What the image appears to represent, however, is determined by the interpretive faculties of the human mind. For example, inferior images on land are very easily mistaken for the reflections from a small body of water.
There is a word for "Unicorn" as well.
-
There is a word for "Unicorn" as well.
A "Unicorn" is not a kind of experience; seeing a mirage is. Hence, "word for this experience".
-
A "Unicorn" is not a kind of experience; seeing a mirage is. Hence, "word for this experience".
I would imagine that seeing a Unicorn would be quite the experience.
-
I would imagine that seeing a Unicorn would be quite the experience.
I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, has had the very real experience of seeing a hallucinated Unicorn while eating random cacti in the desert! It would be ironic if this experience ended up distracting them so much that they walked straight past the very real oasis they were searching for, resulting in a very real tragic death by dehydration.
-
I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, has had the very real experience of seeing a hallucinated Unicorn while eating random cacti in the desert! It would be ironic if this experience ended up distracting them so much that they walked straight past the very real oasis they were searching for, resulting in a very real tragic death by dehydration.
Why do you believe humans need anything exterior to hallucinate?
Why is the Unicorn being imagined different than the oasis to you?
-
Why do you believe humans need anything exterior to hallucinate?
Why is the Unicorn being imagined different than the oasis to you?
Fantastic, this provides another teachable moment for you!
My comment presented something called a hypothetical situation. It is an example of how particular circumstances can lead to a specific outcome. The key takeaway is that--and I recognize this can be confusing!--it does not make any claims outside the details contained within the hypothetical.
This answers both of your questions, but let me make it easy for you: I don't, and because I made these circumstances be true in this hypothetical situation.
-
Fantastic, this provides another teachable moment for you!
My comment presented something called a hypothetical situation. It is an example of how particular circumstances can lead to a specific outcome. The key takeaway is that--and I recognize this can be confusing!--it does not make any claims outside the details contained within the hypothetical.
This answers both of your questions, but let me make it easy for you: I don't, and because I made these circumstances be true in this hypothetical situation.
Even if it is an illusion created by the brain, does that make it any less existent?
-
Even if it is an illusion created by the brain, does that make it any less existent?
If your brain creates the illusion of a unicorn, then the presence of the illusion is real, even if the unicorn is not.
-
If your brain creates the illusion of a unicorn, then the presence of the illusion is real, even if the unicorn is not.
Whatever you say buddy.
-
Whatever you say buddy.
It is very telling that you are unable to respond directly to what I said.
-
It is very telling that you are unable to respond directly to what I said.
Yes it is. But not the way you think.
-
Yes it is. But not the way you think.
Once again, you prove yourself too cowardly to state your thought outright.
-
Once again, you prove yourself too cowardly to state your thought outright.
I have stated my thoughts quite clearly, but allow me to do it again:
Your entire hypothesis is bunk, and you need to jump through hoops to make it work while it also immediately fails using any other example. I know you feel smart because you think philosophy matters. Which it does, but only until it runs into actual Science. You have no argument to support whatever point you are trying to make and now you default to consistent personal attacks and fart smelling because you cannot reliably justify your position.
Is that clear enough for you or am I still "proving myself cowardly to state my thoughts"? Do you have any follow up questions to make it more clear to you?