How much data do you require before you accept something as "fact"?
-
What happens when "science" backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
Have you got an example?
-
What happens when "science" backs up two opposing ideas with sufficient evidence and logic to make either seem plausible?
Then the science isn't done evaluating the opposing ideas. That's the beauty of science, it can be proven wrong and still work.
-
Like, i found this youtube channel from the video "mom founf the yaoi". And now its latest video is about the rapture? Its just morse code, this description, and 2 links in the comments.
As soon as i get home, im yt-dlp this channel to preserve this.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I have no earthly idea what you're talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.
-
I have no earthly idea what you're talking about (replied in the wrong place, maybe?), but that is some prime internet weirdness.
Not sure if people on the internet are doing a bit for the funnies, or actually serious with what the believe.
-
Have you got an example?
Off the top of my head string theory is a good example of numerous competing hypothesis that seem plausible given the data.
-
Then the science isn't done evaluating the opposing ideas. That's the beauty of science, it can be proven wrong and still work.
How can Science be proven wrong and still work? That is not at all how Science works.
-
The fact that there is word for this experience demonstrates that the experience itself objectively exists, which only serves to prove my point.
Answer the question.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is exactly how science works. It self corrects as new information becomes available.
-
Not sure if people on the internet are doing a bit for the funnies, or actually serious with what the believe.
The bit where she's distracted by her skinny arm right after saying she can't distract herself makes me pretty sure it's parody. It's very well done, though.
-
Answer the question.
I have absolutely no idea why you are being so weird about this since obviously if the spring does not exist then it cannot be drunk from. However, what you are working bizarrely hard to go out of your way to miss is that, regardless of whether the spring itself exists in objective reality, the experience of seeing it has objective existence.
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.
-
I have absolutely no idea why you are being so weird about this since obviously if the spring does not exist then it cannot be drunk from. However, what you are working bizarrely hard to go out of your way to miss is that, regardless of whether the spring itself exists in objective reality, the experience of seeing it has objective existence.
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.
Do Unicorns exist?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Depends on the source and the weight of the claim. My fattest friend tells me the new Italian place slaps? Fact. The smartest person I know tells me there's a newly discovered planet? Worth looking into if it comes from them, but I'm skeptical.
-
Do Unicorns exist?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Does asking inane questions make you feel clever?
I think you need to work on your argument.
Edit: Actually, this is a teachable moment to illustrate my point: I highly suspect that you experiencing a feeling of being clever after deploying these non sequiturs is something that objectively exists, but that does not mean that you are objectively being clever.
-
Does asking inane questions make you feel clever?
I think you need to work on your argument.
Edit: Actually, this is a teachable moment to illustrate my point: I highly suspect that you experiencing a feeling of being clever after deploying these non sequiturs is something that objectively exists, but that does not mean that you are objectively being clever.
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.I know you think I am trying to be clever, but I don't need to be clever to see through such simple nonsense which you are unwilling to defend.
You can answer the question or you can stop wasting my time. Tanks.
-
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.I know you think I am trying to be clever, but I don't need to be clever to see through such simple nonsense which you are unwilling to defend.
You can answer the question or you can stop wasting my time. Tanks.
You can answer the question or you can stop wasting my time. Tanks.
Ah, so I am the one responsible for you "wasting [your] time"? That is an interesting transferal of agency on your part, but given that you are clearly waiting with baited breath for my response, here it is:
Yes, if you see a unicorn in the desert, then you might reasonably conclude that this is only because you just ate a particular cactus, given that unicorns aren't objectively real, but that doesn't make your experience of seeing it less objectively real. But seriously, are you next going to make me defend the objective existence of the book The Last Unicorn, given that unicorns aren't real? (To save us from another back-and-forth: yes, the book does exist, so please don't actually ask me this!)
Here, let me try a thought experiment that actually leads the discussion in a useful direction. Suppose you watched someone eat this very same cactus, after which they said, "Oh, whoa, there is a unicorn over there!" You might not consider it to be an objective fact that there actually is a unicorn over there, but I suspect that you probably would consider to be an objective fact that they are currently having the experience of seeing one. (And if the possibility that they could be lying is a problem for you, assume that the cactus was infused with truth serum.)
In fact, it is not hard to imagine a future where we have sufficiently advance neuroscience that we can detect what is in a person's consciousness by monitoring how their neurons are firing and looking for particular patterns. In that case, you would not even have to rely on a self-report to observe the objective existence of the image of a unicorn popping into someone's vision after they ate that cactus. Heck, you could use this device on your own brain and observe a device whose objective existence you believe in produce objectively real reports about what you are experiencing.
So experiences have objective existence, even if they do not refer to anything that objectively exists. (And, just to be clear, I am not arguing in favor of anything magical like a "soul"; I think that consciousness in the brain is just an approach that it uses to aggregate and share information amongst several subcomponents.)
And this leads us to the fundamental point that you keep willfully missing: your experience of the world might be lying to you in any number of ways, but by definition what it cannot be lying to you about is the fact that you are having an experience of the world, because if you were not having such an experience then you would not be able to make such an observation. Even if it were entirely a fiction created by your brain, it is nonetheless a fiction that exists.
-
You can answer the question or you can stop wasting my time. Tanks.
Ah, so I am the one responsible for you "wasting [your] time"? That is an interesting transferal of agency on your part, but given that you are clearly waiting with baited breath for my response, here it is:
Yes, if you see a unicorn in the desert, then you might reasonably conclude that this is only because you just ate a particular cactus, given that unicorns aren't objectively real, but that doesn't make your experience of seeing it less objectively real. But seriously, are you next going to make me defend the objective existence of the book The Last Unicorn, given that unicorns aren't real? (To save us from another back-and-forth: yes, the book does exist, so please don't actually ask me this!)
Here, let me try a thought experiment that actually leads the discussion in a useful direction. Suppose you watched someone eat this very same cactus, after which they said, "Oh, whoa, there is a unicorn over there!" You might not consider it to be an objective fact that there actually is a unicorn over there, but I suspect that you probably would consider to be an objective fact that they are currently having the experience of seeing one. (And if the possibility that they could be lying is a problem for you, assume that the cactus was infused with truth serum.)
In fact, it is not hard to imagine a future where we have sufficiently advance neuroscience that we can detect what is in a person's consciousness by monitoring how their neurons are firing and looking for particular patterns. In that case, you would not even have to rely on a self-report to observe the objective existence of the image of a unicorn popping into someone's vision after they ate that cactus. Heck, you could use this device on your own brain and observe a device whose objective existence you believe in produce objectively real reports about what you are experiencing.
So experiences have objective existence, even if they do not refer to anything that objectively exists. (And, just to be clear, I am not arguing in favor of anything magical like a "soul"; I think that consciousness in the brain is just an approach that it uses to aggregate and share information amongst several subcomponents.)
And this leads us to the fundamental point that you keep willfully missing: your experience of the world might be lying to you in any number of ways, but by definition what it cannot be lying to you about is the fact that you are having an experience of the world, because if you were not having such an experience then you would not be able to make such an observation. Even if it were entirely a fiction created by your brain, it is nonetheless a fiction that exists.
You put a lot of effort in to something that you should have known I wasn't going to read because it doesn't answer the question.
-
You put a lot of effort in to something that you should have known I wasn't going to read because it doesn't answer the question.
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.
-
How can Science be proven wrong and still work? That is not at all how Science works.
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. -
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
