固定されたツイート
@michaer27 @darwintojesus P2. In my view 'knowledge' exists as a 'transcendent object of value'.
GIF
English
Darren Andres
9.2K posts
Darren Andres
@Darrandre
American dissident. I'd rather be corrected than wrong, truth is greater than utility. What's 'good' anyway?
America 参加日 Mayıs 2024
321 フォロー中145 フォロワー
What I've got here, is on empty assertion of yours.
-you said it's bad faith when people drift into realms that are wildly esoteric with their why questions.
I asked what you mean by what is 'wildly esoteric' so that we could both avoid it.
-so I'll ask you again, what are you referring to when you use the term 'wildly esoteric'?
English
@Darrandre Thats not what I said. Seriously. You need to do acting like you have gotcha moments when you dint understand the point being made
English
"being ""wildly esoteric"" is 'bad faith'... And just have faith I know what that means"
EVILpartyOfficial@TheHonestEvil
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Pretty much and by the time you get down to asking "well how do you know anything?" In any discussion outside of wildlybesoteric philosophy discussions (and sometimes even then) you're demonstrating that you aren't actually interested in the discussion and are acting in bad faith
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Right. And in that situation, would that *confirm the hypothesis to be factualy false?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus That the experiment shows your hypothesis to be false and at best you need to abandon or modify your hypothesis.
English
@TheHonestEvil What makes something 'scientific' outside of the scientific method?
-what? Is this a 'wildly esoteric' question to ask?
English
@Darrandre You need to do doing this when you don't understand what youre being told.
English
Believing a distinction exists without a reason is rational when?
EVILpartyOfficial@TheHonestEvil
@Darrandre @darwintojesus And ti make this distinction again. A claim being scientific and the scientific method are different thjngs.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus And this is you're description of how scientists 'fail to falsify' a hypothesis, right?
So then, what would it mean if they 'succeed in falsifying' a hypothesis?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Exactly what I said. When you design experiments you arent trying to prove your hypothesis right. Your trying to check all the ways to show you're wrong, only when you've checked all the ways you can think of to show your wrong you publish it and let everyone else try to.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus "No it doesn't, science doesn't "prove" anything. It fails to falsify it."
-what do you mean when you say science 'fails to falsify'?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus No, thats nit what unfalsifiabke means.
An unfalisifiable claim is one where no matter what observations are made you cannot show it to be false. (Most claims about gods fall into this)
A falsifiable one is one where it is where there are observations that could falsify jt.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus But my question to you is what would you even be looking to falsify without a hypothesis?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus No it doesn't, science doesn't "prove" anything. It fails to falsify it.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus You keep asserting this, what reason do you have to believe that's true?
-what's the distinction between the two?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus And ti make this distinction again. A claim being scientific and the scientific method are different thjngs.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus And by the way, observation, and testing, these are two steps of the scientific method.
-is it your perspective that only half of the scientific method is required for something to be considered 'scientific' outside of the scientific method??
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Claims that are observable, testable and falsifiable are "scientific" claims. That does not mean that they are correct, just that they are claims that they are claims that can be investigated scientifically.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Falsification works towards the ends of confirmation.
But my question to you is what would you even be looking to falsify without a hypothesis?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Question for you 1st cause it'll possibly help answer, if you have a hypothesis do you try to confirm or falsify it?
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Or from your perspective, would asking how can we know when something is becoming 'wildly esoteric', a 'wildly esoteric' question for you?
English
No worries. Happens all the time. Just wanted to ensure I was understanding you correctly.
-and in the spirit of understanding you fully, let me ask, how can we know if we are beginning to venture into what you call wildly esoteric realms?
That way we can both clearly avoid being 'bad faith' with each other.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus That sounds pretty fascinating. But I'm wondering from your perspective, what exactly would be considered 'scientific' without going through the 'scientific method'?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus The modern scientific method is actually a pretty recent creation that essentially sprouts from the idea of being able to check each others work. Before the late 19th century most "scientists" didn't really follow the scientific method but still made many scientific discoveries.
English
If information takes place, 'out there', then where does 'meaning' occur?
GIF
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus That's interesting. Is it your belief, that something can be qualified as 'scientific', without going through the 'scientific method'?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus You didnt ask for the scientific method, you asked what makes something scientific. Those are different questions. If you want what the scientific method is then i missed a whole bunch of steps.
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus "wildlybesoteric" did you mean wildly esoteric?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Pretty much and by the time you get down to asking "well how do you know anything?" In any discussion outside of wildlybesoteric philosophy discussions (and sometimes even then) you're demonstrating that you aren't actually interested in the discussion and are acting in bad faith
English
@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Right. But you're missing step two. Hypothesis. Are you familiar with what a valid hypothesis is compared to an invalid hypothesis?
English
@Darrandre @darwintojesus Observable, falsifiable, testable.
Español