Is there a philosophical style you identify with?
Are you a Stoic or an Epicurean, or do you read but not quite get what they drive at?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
I consider the scientific method to be a philosophical style, and I identify with it. Observe, hypothesize, test. Then measure and test some more.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
SomeMichGuy · M
@ElwoodBlues Great quotes!
sree251 · 41-45, M
@ElwoodBlues
Can you test the falsity of something you perceive to be true?
I consider the scientific method to be a philosophical style, and I identify with it. Observe, hypothesize, test. Then measure and test some more.
Can you test the falsity of something you perceive to be true?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@ElwoodBlues
And you call that philosophy. You don't need intelligence to debug a code. A robot can be programed to do it.
Sure; do it all the time debugging code!
And you call that philosophy. You don't need intelligence to debug a code. A robot can be programed to do it.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sree251 You asked:
And then you tried to change the subject to a poorly defined thing known as "intelligence," LOL!!!
Look, I answered your question quite accurately, and attempting to change the subject won't hide that fact.
In addition, there are LOTS of cases in science where interesting discoveries resulted from scientists ultimately proving the falsity of things they believed and perceived to be true.
One easy example: Penzias and Wilson believed excess noise was somehow leaking into their horn antenna in Holmdel NJ in 1964. Electromagnetic theory, which they believed, said the noise floor should be lower than what they were measuring.
Their eventual disproof of their beliefs resulted in the 1976 Nobel Prize in physics!
Can you test the falsity of something you perceive to be true?
In response, I pointed out that I do that all the time.And then you tried to change the subject to a poorly defined thing known as "intelligence," LOL!!!
Look, I answered your question quite accurately, and attempting to change the subject won't hide that fact.
In addition, there are LOTS of cases in science where interesting discoveries resulted from scientists ultimately proving the falsity of things they believed and perceived to be true.
One easy example: Penzias and Wilson believed excess noise was somehow leaking into their horn antenna in Holmdel NJ in 1964. Electromagnetic theory, which they believed, said the noise floor should be lower than what they were measuring.
Their eventual disproof of their beliefs resulted in the 1976 Nobel Prize in physics!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sree251 · 41-45, M
@ElwoodBlues
You do worship authority of science the way Christians worship their God. Penzias and Wilson disproved the electromagnetic theory and proved the excess noise was explained by the Big Bang Theory. Leave those witch doctors to their beliefs. What about your ability at testing the falsity of something you perceive to be true?
Their eventual disproof of their beliefs resulted in the 1976 Nobel Prize in physics!
You do worship authority of science the way Christians worship their God. Penzias and Wilson disproved the electromagnetic theory and proved the excess noise was explained by the Big Bang Theory. Leave those witch doctors to their beliefs. What about your ability at testing the falsity of something you perceive to be true?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Kwek00
What you call dogmatic is the consistency of religious doctrines. Science plays fast and loose, like a wanton woman. This is why you woke people have lost the way and corrupted the moral culture of America. We used to be a wholesome Christian nation. Look at the mess now.
Christianity is dogmatic... and you just gave a perfect example why science isn't dogmatic. Good job Sree.
What you call dogmatic is the consistency of religious doctrines. Science plays fast and loose, like a wanton woman. This is why you woke people have lost the way and corrupted the moral culture of America. We used to be a wholesome Christian nation. Look at the mess now.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sree251
When did that happen? In that other post I quoted, you said:
... haven't you figured it out yet? Perception and reality are not synonyms.
We used to be a wholesome Christian nation.
When did that happen? In that other post I quoted, you said:
Incidentally, we are heading for the abyss as unwitting passengers in the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
... haven't you figured it out yet? Perception and reality are not synonyms.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Kwek00
What topics in this forum are not simple? You guys are full of yourselves. I spend my time on two kind of websites for discussions: here, and another that hosts academics and professionals who publish research papers. No one is going anywhere, neither here nor there regardless of their highly trained minds. What topic is this anyway? Philosophical style? Give me a break.
Anyway, I do enjoy engaging with minds like yours. It's like going down blind alleys on the other side of the tracks and chatting with the the homeless on what it takes to be rich and famous.
You are a little bit too simple for the toppics you engage with. 🤏
What topics in this forum are not simple? You guys are full of yourselves. I spend my time on two kind of websites for discussions: here, and another that hosts academics and professionals who publish research papers. No one is going anywhere, neither here nor there regardless of their highly trained minds. What topic is this anyway? Philosophical style? Give me a break.
Anyway, I do enjoy engaging with minds like yours. It's like going down blind alleys on the other side of the tracks and chatting with the the homeless on what it takes to be rich and famous.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sree251 You:
Also you:
While making dumb comments as:
along the way...
You guys are full of yourselves.
Also you:
Anyway, I do enjoy engaging with minds like yours. It's like going down blind alleys on the other side of the tracks and chatting with the the homeless on what it takes to be rich and famous.
While making dumb comments as:
Perception is reality.
along the way...
ElwoodBlues · M
@sree251 whines
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
You do worship authority of science
Science isn't an "authority," it's a methodology. You completely misunderstood the Feynman quotes, didn't you, LOL!!!“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman