What happened...

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Well, in the event he wasn't being sarcastic then what he just said was pointless. In hockey, all those things are expected. It is the POINT of hockey. But for some reason, a thread meant to find out what was making the forums die somehow turned into a raging war about who is a god, religion, and some other nonsense. It seems that just about every thread turns out this way. With everyone insulting the [haties] out of each other and being complete wise-asses.

AND I don't really see the point he was trying to make in his post.

[windhound]

Actually, the point of hockey is to score the most goals.
Skating the fastest, hitting the hardest, shooting the straightest, or making the other team look bad are all just side effects introduced by players (and fans) with high levels of testosterone.
Now its doubtful that hockey would be as popular without those additions, but eh.

I think you got the point in any case, even if you didnt want to.

The forum -would- be dead if everyone stayed precisely on topic.  I mean.  Who wants to talk about how their forum is dying.  Debating Ragey's godlike qualities is much more fun (and goes towards proving the opposite), but I dont see how a topic dedicated to the subject would ever emerge on its own.  It came about here via evolution.  The topic is not derailed, it sidetracked.
I dont see any flame in the topic.  At all.  I dont mind wise-asses, and cleverly crafted insults are amusing.

Lighten up Ungatt, dont read every post looking for whats not there.  Add a grain of salt or two.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

I dunno, I guess its funny. Every time I went off topic someone had something to say about, usually a mod or admin. And this was around the time I joined...

[windhound]

Depends on how far off-base you are and if there was any interest in the original topic still remaining
Its a case-by-case thing and its generally self-regulating.  As in, the offtopic posts are ignored by everyone else wishing to stay on topic.

If you have any specific examples I'd be glad to clarify

btw, an addendum to my last post, there was no flame in this topic till your post.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Seems to be how it always is. Awful old me vs. the world and me being the instigator of it all. But then again we would all just die from boredom without some form of conflict, it IS human nature to prove one's self to others and the best way to do that is with conflict.

[Holby]

Seems to be how it always is. Awful old me vs. the world and me being the instigator of it all.

So who's wrong, you or the world?

[windhound]

You know, after posts like

What the [haties] is wrong with you people?

Just about any argument there is (No matter how stupid it is) you all somehow manage to get extremely off topic and begin to bicker amongst yourselves. And all these arguments really are is to see who can type the biggest word, or sound the smartest, or make the other guy look dumb. Jesus Christ I'll never understand any of you...

its hard to rack up any sympathy, "everyone is against me" points

[Ungatt Trunn II]

That's all a matter of opinion, I suppose. And by world I was referencing to the users of this forum. I don't have many friends around here, maybe because I tend to try not to get involved and don't get noticed much... :-\

And to windhound, that's just fine, I don't want any sympathy. It's just when I act up like anyone else I get noticed almost immediately. But I suppose that has little to do with this.

[windhound]

Ungatt Trunn II
RWL is my HOME
*****
Posts: 103

You dont have enough posts to make that claim.
Again.  Give me specific examples and I'll explain why

Seems to be how it always is. Awful old me vs. the world and me being the instigator of it all. But then again we would all just die from boredom without some form of conflict, it IS human nature to prove one's self to others and the best way to do that is with conflict.

That, by my definition, is a sympathy "me vs world" post.  You dont get to make both a "holy carp you guys suxxors" and a "gee guyz, the world hates me" post

Post productively.
Get involved.  If you screw up, learn and move on.
You cant expect to have friends if all you do is sit back and watch.
You also cant expect to make friends with statements like "@%#! I'll never understand any of you."  It also doesnt endear you to the staff.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

I understand that.

Sorry for sounding like an emo.

And about the post count, a lot of this happened in the spa room.

[Gen. Volkov]

Well, you still haven't proposed a scientific test... What are the attributes and properties of a god that you you would like to test and see if I pass them?

Well, you claimed godhood, but now say you are not a god like the God of Abraham. But still every god I know is attributed superhuman powers. They vary, but one of the most common among all God stories is the ability to change one thing into another. So, we could test that, for one.

Philosophically speaking, facts are things which are in the world, whereas beliefs are mental propositions. Beliefs can be about facts. You There is no verb form for "fact" you believe facts or disbelieve them, facts are true or not.

Scientific sets about proving a hypothesis as follows...

1. If my hypothesis is true, then I should observe x PREMISE, unverifiable
2. I observe x. PREMISE, unverifiable.
3. Therefore my hypothesis is true. CONCLUSION

No, it doesn't. Scientific testing works as follows:

1. Hypothesis set that is mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
2. There are two choices, the null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis.
3. The null hypothesis usually states that there will be no difference between control and experimental data, alternate hypothesis usually says that there will be.
4. Experiment is set up. There is a control, in which all variables are held constant, and the experiment in which all variables are the same as the control except for one. (Ideally anyway.)
5. Experiment is run, data is tabulated and analyzed.
6. Based on date, null hypothesis is accepted or rejected, as it is the only hypothesis that his categorically true or untrue. You DO NOT accept or reject the alternate hypothesis, as it is not categorically true or untrue, and furthermore not quantifiable.

Science is primarily about finding what is wrong.

The whole of science is actually based on a logical fallacy(of affirming the consequent; you learn about it in early logic courses), but nevertheless, science is logic applied to observation. The whole things is sort of a running joke among philosophers of science.

Are you a philosopher of science? I would suspect not, as it seems as if your understanding of science and scientific testing is flawed. Science is logic applied to observation, created by some philosophers who were way brighter than both of us. I love how you just tried to dismiss all of science with a few sentences though. It's a bit of a running joke among real scientists, that philosophers are constantly trying to make us go away so they can go on with thinking, and not be bothered with our constant need to test and evaluate stuff in the real world.

So... by that definition all provable beliefs are facts... If you read Descartes(and post-cartesian sceptics) you'll quickly learn that there is very little that is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt...

I know, almost everything in the world is only provable to a certain degree of certainty. However, if you make that error bar small enough, it's close enough for me to accept it as fact. It depends on what you are trying to prove of course, how small that error bar has to be.

The problem with calling facts "provable beliefs" is that second word. Many philosophers think "belief" is not a useful word at all. My main problem with using "belief" is that it does not inherently require an examination of the evidence. One can have beliefs, but they are not necessarily true or justified. You have to tack on words to "belief" in order to turn it into facts or knowledge. So once again, in philosophy terms, you are right, but in everyday terms, there is a distinction between a belief and a fact, or knowledge. Sorry if I'm dragging you into the world of the mundane and banal.

What the [haties] is wrong with you people?

Nothing.

Just about any argument there is (No matter how stupid it is) you all somehow manage to get extremely off topic and begin to bicker amongst yourselves.

We aren't bickering, we are engaging in reasoned debate.

And all these arguments really are is to see who can type the biggest word, or sound the smartest, or make the other guy look dumb.

If you feel that way, you don't have to engage in it, but let other people have their fun. (And we are having fun.)

Jesus Christ I'll never understand any of you...

And so, because you can't understand us, you say we are the stupid ones?

[Ragefur]

Okay... So here's your description of science rephrased in symbolic logic...

X= Experimental Data Differs to Control Data
P = Null Hypothesis

1. P v ~P (the only logically mutually exclusive hypotheses; P and NOT(~) P)
2 + 3. [IF NOT P THEN X] (If the null hypothesis is false, then there will be a difference between experimental data and control data)
4. Experiment is run.
4a: X (Experimental Data Differs)
4b: THEREFORE ~P. (4a, 2: Fallacy of affirming the consequent).

This is called empiricism or reasoning from induction(statistics and whatnot) it fell out of vogue in the 1920s...

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" gives a good discussion of science, and he points to examples where scientific paradigms are abandoned and taken up based not on empirical evidence or testing, but rather based on a host of other reasons including socio-cultural reasons and other things of that nature. Once a paradigm has been established(or believed) then scientists set about the work of figuring out how the rest of the world fits into that pre-existent belief - think of geocentrism, or the phlogiston theory, in both cases scientists had huge volumes of work, phlogiston was empirically verified(there were machines to measure it) geocentrism could be used to plot the courses of the planets through the heavens...

I'm not  a full time philosopher of science... I dabble though; I'm more interested in the philosophy of language or mind.

The trick is that scientists still used practices that are theoretically out-dated and fallacious because it works for what they want: think of Newtonian physics which work fine as an approximation until you get to things that are really small or fast...

So is the statement "All facts are things which are empirically verifiable, while beliefs cannot be verified through testing" a fact or a belief? That is to say, if you cannot think of a way to test that statement then it isn't a fact but a belief, which means it could be a mere belief. That means that all your facts are, by your definition, beliefs.

"if you make that error bar small enough, it's close enough for me to accept it as fact." Again, is that a belief or fact?

I didn't talk for a long time about philosophy of science because I don't want to regurgitate 20 page essays on what science is. >.<

Ungatt... Try to stay on topic, please. Don't whine just because you are bad at this game of debating.

Now... The test
I can change flour, eggs, milk, and water into delicious pancakes.
However I don't

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Volkov, I didn't say you're stupid. In fact, I feel like one of the dumber ones around here.

And Ragefur, how can you possibly be telling me to stay on topic after.... you know what forget it.

[Gen. Volkov]

[edit] OK, it's pretty clear to me at this point that I am not equipped to argue philosophy or formal logic with you. I've taken one philosophy course, you've probably taken many. I don't think what I said is necessarily invalid, but my knowledge in this subject is limited. I'm pretty sure at least one professor of philosophy at my school thinks science and the philosophy behind it is valid. So if you insist on continuing to argue about the validity of science, I'm going to put you in touch with him. For myself, I'm fairly certain that science is valid, and from my experience, as well as everything I've learned about science tells me that science and the scientific method are the best way to go about learning about the world. If you disagree, that's your prerogative, but I'm just not prepared or equipped to argue the validity of science. For myself, and myself only, the idea that science is valid is a belief, but that does not necessarily mean it is a belief for all scientists. Commence the gloating, backhanded comments or whatever else you want to on your "victory".

Wikipedia seems to have done a decent summary job of why science is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Grounds_of_validity_of_scientific_reasoning

Okay... So here's your description of science rephrased in symbolic logic...

You once again fail to parse it correctly. You never accept the alternate hypothesis. You can only accept or reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is false, it points to the alternate hypothesis being correct, but does not confirm it to be true.

This is called empiricism or reasoning from induction(statistics and whatnot) it fell out of vogue in the 1920s...

In philosophy maybe it did. I don't think that's the case in the scientific community. But I could be wrong.

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" gives a good discussion of science, and he points to examples where scientific paradigms are abandoned and taken up based not on empirical evidence or testing, but rather based on a host of other reasons including socio-cultural reasons and other things of that nature. Once a paradigm has been established(or believed) then scientists set about the work of figuring out how the rest of the world fits into that pre-existent belief - think of geocentrism, or the phlogiston theory, in both cases scientists had huge volumes of work, phlogiston was empirically verified(there were machines to measure it) geocentrism could be used to plot the courses of the planets through the heavens...

Geo centrism was abandoned in the 1600's, because people like Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. The proposed orbits in a geo-centric model did not fit reality. The same happened with Phlogiston, experiments proved that there was no such thing as phlogiston. I had not heard that there were machines to measure it, but it's rather irrelevant. In both cases, the model was proven wrong through observation and experimental data. Neither of those theories were science based anyway. The originator of phlogiston was an alchemist, and the disproving of phlogiston is one of the things that helped the science of chemistry emerge from alchemy, which was not science and in fact was basically a religion. Likewise, the Geo-centric model was not a scientific idea, but a a religious and social one, and the disproving of the geocentric model helped found the modern sciences of physics and astronomy. In modern science, it's very very rare for a model to be accepted or rejected that's not based on experimental evidence.

Anyway, don't talk to me about Thomas Kuhn. He basically dismissed all of modern science, and laid the groundwork for people like Paul Feyer to be able to say that astrology is somehow as valid as modern science. There are so many things wrong with that idea, that I don't even want to get into it. Basically what you are promoting here is relativism, in order to win the argument that you are a God. This is a very destructive philosophy to have, in my opinion.

I'm not  a full time philosopher of science... I dabble though; I'm more interested in the philosophy of language or mind.

Then I suspect you and I will not get along, as I am about to graduate with a degree in biology.

The trick is that scientists still used practices that are theoretically out-dated and fallacious because it works for what they want: think of Newtonian physics which work fine as an approximation until you get to things that are really small or fast...

Yeah, which is where Einsteinian physics or quantum physics comes in. The unification of those two theoretical models is the much sought after Theory of Everything. Newtonian physics works as an approximation for students because at most speeds the difference between the calculated values is tiny, when using equations that should have relativity factored in. Unless something is going near the speed of light, the difference is just too small to matter, for the precision that matters to students. Real physicists do use the relativistic equations though. Just like in molecular biology, for students who aren't going into molecular biology, it works for them to know the central dogma. (Genes -> RNA -> Protein) Actual molecular biologists know the exceptions to the rule though.

"if you make that error bar small enough, it's close enough for me to accept it as fact." Again, is that a belief or fact?

It's an acceptance of the real world, where nothing is completely absolute. There's a tiny tiny chance that I all the atoms in my body will spontaneously cease to exist, but I don't worry about it, because the chance that it will happen is so infinitesimal. It's an assumption. You tell me, is an assumption the same as a belief? I don't think it is.

So is the statement "All facts are things which are empirically verifiable, while beliefs cannot be verified through testing" a fact or a belief? That is to say, if you cannot think of a way to test that statement then it isn't a fact but a belief, which means it could be a mere belief. That means that all your facts are, by your definition, beliefs

I didn't make that statement, and it's not even an abbreviation of what I said. I would say that a fact is something that has been empirically verified, where as a belief may or may not be verifiable through empirical testing. That uncertainty is why I distinguish between a fact and a belief. I don't think that contradicts anything else I've said in this thread. I'm pretty sure what you are attempting to do here is box me into a logical corner, and then pull the "all beliefs are equally valid" line on me. I've used relativism before myself, and I'm trying to not do so anymore, because to me, if everything is equally valid then nothing is valid, and if nothing is valid, then what point in learning?

I didn't talk for a long time about philosophy of science because I don't want to regurgitate 20 page essays on what science is. >.<

Right.

Now... The test
I can change flour, eggs, milk, and water into delicious pancakes.
However I don't

I said change one (1) thing into another. Not multiple things into one thing. So next you'll say you can burn a log, changing wood into ash. However, I have not defined the test. I gave a vague suggestion. Oh, and making pancakes does not require superhuman powers. A common transformation was turning a man into an animal of some sort. For example, Circe turned Odysseus' men into swine, literally, not figuratively. So, turning a person into an animal of some sort, literally speaking, would be one test.

Volkov, I didn't say you're stupid. In fact, I feel like one of the dumber ones around here.

OK then.

[Firetooth]

hemhem
as ragefur's official sidekick/partner/footstool/footlicker/partner in crime I have to say:
he fits my formula
so...
he's coolest :P