|
|
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 |
|
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 |
testable, verifiable and repeatable - using devices external to and independent of opinion.
Are there other definitions of fact? Yes. But those definitions weaken the power of the scientific method to differentiate between those things we can verify and those things which are opinion.
Since, as far as I am aware, the only demonstrable tool we have that allows us to verify fact from opinion by an examination of results is the scientific method - creating a consistent methodology for applying the scientific method is an important part of using the scientific method as a tool.
A part of defining and using the tool is coming up with definitions for the inputs and outputs of the process we call the scientific method. Ergo, "facts" as the output - as defined above.
The nice thing about this definition is that it makes *everything else* subject to continuous re-evaluation. This is a good thing IMO, as it teaches us to constantly unlearn old falsehoods - as our knowledge of how the world works increases. This utility is IMO the mainspring of progress.
Are there other ways of looking at the situation? Certainly. But all the other ways impede progress toward solution with greater efficacy than the point-of-view being presented in my posts. Again, we are not talking about "wrong, right, true, false" - we are talking about what works most efficiently versus what works less efficiently - a reality-based evaluation dependent upon results which are as divorced from opinion as we can design the system.
Circular arguments occur at the level of discussion we have reached - where the definitions of the words used for the discussion come into dispute. It means we are down at the level where tenets (which are opinions) define the workability or non-workability of our tools. Dealing at this level inevitably involves contention and disagreement, because there is no further and more foundational level upon which to build an argument. Thus, the argument must devolve to a clash of opinion.
At that point, we are left on the horns of a dilemma. Do we agree to disagree or do we use some tool or other to allow ourselves to be productive - regardless of our inability to discern an absolute definition? I choose to be productive in an imperfect world where knowing absolutes is impossible. The tool I use to be productive is the scientific method, complete with all the uncertainties that working with an imperfect brain in an indeterminate universe implies. I'd rather be productive with the environment I am given than strive to find a way around the limitations of the environment I live in for no other purpose than mental gynmastics.
Is the above "right"? No. It is simply functional. And that is all it can be, considering our current knowledge of the universe. We don't know enough for it to be otherwise. Furthermore, it is possible, given what we already know about uncertainty and quantum-cloud states - that we may never know enough for our tenets to be resolvable into facts. That's not sufficient reason to abandon a committment to progress.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
