Rubbish! There is a scientific theory that if a fist of a person A comes in impact contact with the nose of a person B, then the nose of the person B would respond with intensive bleeding. Any empirical test of this theory proves it right (easy to check, just volunteer to become a person B yourself). Perhaps the Popper's nose could refute it and prove it false - but, alas, Popper is not available for such test anymore.1-No scientific theory can be proved true.
2-A scientific theory can only be proved false.
3-A theory which cannot be refuted is not a scientific theory.
Expanded Science
-
- Banned
- Posts: 977
- Joined: March 25th, 2010, 9:54 pm
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: October 21st, 2010, 10:46 pm
Wowbagger it didn`t answer my question. It said something about burden of proof, but thats science framing the question to something outside of its domain. Whatever you argue against religion you can`t argue burden of proof. Its all faith based.@Noshitsherlock, incidentally the link I just posted answers your question, so if you have the patience to read it, I recommend it to you.
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
No **** it's faith based. That's the point, and I argued that faith is a very bad way of trying to find truth. The burden of proof is indeed the argument against it.Noshitsherlock wrote:Whatever you argue against religion you can`t argue burden of proof. Its all faith based.
Think about it, if I told you I have faith that after I die I become a frog, why should anyone take this seriously if there's no evidence for it? Or how should one try to disprove such a claim?
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: October 21st, 2010, 10:46 pm
NO that was the point I made in the first place on this thread, you just want me to leave this thread and listen to you rant on about burdens of proof. Its your double standard at work. The people who choose to have faith have many intelligible reasons why they do, you paint a broad brush over who they are and how they think and say they have to prove to a skeptic like you and the opposer of their belief. Its pretentious when using science to frame burden of proof on those with faith which isn`t an exact science.No **** it's faith based. That's the point, and I argued that faith is a very bad way of trying to find truth. The burden of proof is indeed the argument against it.
Indeed. So why compare what others intelligently decided is their faith to your immature assertion that you just decided you are going to be a frog after you die?have faith that after I die I become a frog, why should anyone take this seriously
My post was asking why the double standard, not why groups and millions of people believe thats another subject. Brainwashing comes under the whys. If they repeat what they read without thinking about what they read.
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
It's something different if people think their faith is based on evidence. But then it isn't faith in the sense I meant anymore. In that case, it simply comes down to whether 'their' evidence qualifies, which makes it a different discussion.
You're the one bringing up a double-standart. I was simply talking about science, which is a proven way of finding out 'truths' about the world. You're bringing in something else (faith) claiming, but not proving that it is useful.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 977
- Joined: March 25th, 2010, 9:54 pm
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
Needless to say, some people certainly do things for the money. And all the pharma company research (which pays more than the rest), I get what you mean.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 977
- Joined: March 25th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Science has many layers (just like the ogres or the onions ) Some top areas of science are fully abstract, so they do not bring the immediate practical solutions - but their role is to establish a valid search field for the practical sciences. Astrophysics is a new science, not yet commonly recognised as a separate science, so far it is only a branch of Physics which tries to study the macro-processes in the Universe. Whatever the Astro-Physicists discover remains on their responsibility, as the other branches of science do not have practical means to experimentally verify their discoveries.Wowbagger wrote:Actually there are lots of people who study science for the sake of curiosity. Scientists aren't that well-paid. And think of all the astrophysicists working on GUT or m-theory. They aren't doing it for the money.
Needless to say, some people certainly do things for the money. And all the pharma company research (which pays more than the rest), I get what you mean.
As for the Curiosity, it is certainly one of the moving forces of any scientific research, as it establishes the Initiative. A scientist is curious to know how this or that happens, and this stimulates the diversification of the approaches; all major discoveries are made by the curious people. But this does not eliminate their practical side, as one the same time can be curious if some buck can be made of a pure water
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: October 21st, 2010, 10:46 pm
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023