Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Philosophy of Science (Score 1) 626

by Empiric (#47968425) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

No, I have done nothing of the sort as debunk myself.

I need no more of a subset of the Philosophy of Science than is pertinent and demonstrates the premise false. As is always the case.

There is nothing "nonsense" about metaphysics. It is simply positions and arguments as to what fundamentally exists, including the view of Naturalism that I presume you adhere to. This core branch of philosophy will take a bit more to determine as "nonsense" (as if a categorization per se could ever be "nonsense") than your obviously wholly-uninformed declaration, formed as it is by 2500 years of minds notably better than yours.

I'm not sure what the quote of me that I never said is supposed to add, but there is nothing "grade school" about my definition. My statements were, contrary to your simplistic handwaving (or lack of knowledge on the level you project), pointing out that hypothesis formation itself is not an easily-defined process. Where do the hypotheses come from? An offhand glossing over of this question is easy. To actually understand it in detail (and by extension to understand scientific method per se) is much harder. I'd suggest Robert Pirsig as a source for quality (ahem) elaboration on this, and since you seem to be reactionarily attacking anything that vaguely reminds you of religion, regardless of the damage to understanding of science you may do, I'll feed your bias and note he's well known for a few rather extreme quotes dismissing religion.

Comment: Re:Science is... (Score 1) 626

by Empiric (#47966531) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything
Your subjective definition of "best" is meaningless in terms of science.

I'm sorry you don't understand the issue here. The claims were the scope of science is unlimited and it is the only way of creating knowledge. These claims are false. You are merely adding illustrative examples of why they are false.

Comment: Re:Philosophy of Science (Score 1) 626

by Empiric (#47966247) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Again, content-free, and your supposed "inductive reasoning" is based on no knowledge of me as your sole justification, and therefore blatantly and wholly invalid. I suppose, your brand of science requires no evidence at all, for your proclamations.

There simply is no method that reduces the infinite range of proposable hypotheses to particular likely-relevant ones, that can be systematized.

We are in the domain of "inspiration" and "insight" and "domain knowledge inference" now, which is not formally exhaustively definable as if an algorithmic attribute of scientific method. Present any scientific paper you wish, as, well, the most simplistic beginnings to any evidence for your claims, and I'll have identified the premises that are not derived from any self-contained methodological process within 5 minutes. It's not difficult to do.

Comment: Re:Science is... (Score 1) 626

by Empiric (#47966107) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything
Let me refresh the thread with the original claim:

"The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge."

So, if you agree, do it, and state the knowledge resulting from it, answering the question. I'm particularly interested in your test for it. What you have described is not scientific method at all, yet, we have epistemological methods by which we conclude we have a valid view as to the answer, or at least knowledge -meaningful toward- the answer.

This is denied in whole and in part by the original claim. That's because, the claim is -false-, as a great deal of effort and counterpoint represented within the Logical Positivism movement has soundly demonstrated. At minimum, anyone posting such a claim should be familiar with those arguments. Particularly since, rather than a singular "trick question", the -majority- of human knowledge and the -majority- of domains of inquiry (i.e. politics, history, economics, etc.) are of this nature, and generally opaque to scientific method. Science is a subset of epistemology, not a replacement for it. Actually attempting to live as if everything should be resolved by scientific method, is a literal impossibility.

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 1) 626

by Empiric (#47965029) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

As opposed to saying the ultimate cause is "random", a non-explanation presuming a causal world, and which admits anything in its lack of causal specificity--including angels.

Not specifying is not specification. Equivocating by stating it's random, but not really random, is neither specification nor science nor rational.

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...