|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Not Quite The UF Philosophy Corner | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 10:33:33 |
|
Not quite valid. The statement presupposes the | by twixt | 2009-03-30 11:06:30 |
|
What makes you feel | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 11:10:29 |
| That's actually the crux of the matter. And is, |
by twixt |
2009-03-30 11:40:20 |
by the way, the heart of the scientific method. Facts are established by their inconvenient stubbornness - their refusal to go away simply because they don't support a hypothesis. (See Philip K. Dick's definition of reality)
Humanity has been using the scientific method to resolve issues since long before the scientific method was codified in language. Furthermore, the scientific method is the only tool of which I am aware that reliably allows for differences of opinion to be resolved with certainty.
However, there are many situations where an experiment to resolve a difference of opinion cannot be constructed. In that case, the opinion cannot be resolved using that tool. However, humans have persisted in ascribing the words "right, wrong, true, false" to conflicts of opinion where those conflicts of opinion are irresolvable using the scientific method - regardless of the fact that those words are simply invalid in those situations. This is the basic premise that allows the existence of war.
Furthermore, just because something is common does not make it right (the democratic conundrum that prohibits mob-rule from being a valid method of social control). IMO, we as humans need to start understanding the places where we can use the word "fact" and where we cannot.
An enormous amount of what society deems as inalterable truth is opinion. That it is supported by the vast majority of humans and is called "common sense" - regardless of the fact that "common sense" exists - does not mean that there are situations where someone calls common-sense something that someone else calls nonsense. The way we resolve this is by examining the results produced by the two opinions - which is the scientific method in operation.
Regardless, society finds the results of the scientific method inconvenient at times. Consequently, there is demonization of the validity of the scientific method when a sacred-cow is assailed. However, that does not change the results. Facts do not change because we want them to. And for real progress to occur, our models and theories must conform ever-more-accurately to the facts. Ergo, the need to separate fact from opinion and reliably differentiate between the two even in our sociological models.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Does it follow that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 11:58:07 |
|
All statements which cannot be resolved by | by twixt | 2009-03-30 12:37:36 |
|
Does that include the statement | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 12:39:34 |
|
Yes. That is a tenet. Like the mathematical | by twixt | 2009-03-30 12:58:24 |
|
That's not necessarily the case. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 13:07:20 |
|
OK, I get what you are saying. However, | by twixt | 2009-03-30 13:31:25 |
|
That's not quite what I'm saying | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 16:54:31 |
|
For the scientific method to work, a "fact" is | by twixt | 2009-03-30 18:56:53 |
|
All statements in the above form are automatically | by Adiplomat | 2009-03-30 12:55:28 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
