AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-09-29, 10:22   Link #2161
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
You mean "nature," or "scientific knowledge," not the scientific process itself.
Uh...yeah. Thanks for making it clearer in words for me.

Quote:
The limitation is the limitation of our knowledge (our understanding of nature). Our limits will increase once our technology improves, so that we can gather more data and perform more experiments.
But our very own understood data may be completely false, what do you think will happen if that occurs?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 10:31   Link #2162
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
But our very own understood data may be completely false, what do you think will happen if that occurs?
Not all of our data can be false, because we've been able to use the laws and theories we've derived from them in engineering project. If Newton's data turned out to be BS (and his laws of gravity are BS in turn), then we would not have been able to build impressive bridges and skyscrapers. These days, "false" data usually comes in the form of inaccurate measurements, which can be corrected with new tools.

In a situation where humans enter a different dimension with different physical laws (and yet are somehow able to stay alive), then the first step of the scientific process would be to pull out a ruler and start measuring things to gather data.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 10:45   Link #2163
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
Not all of our data can be false, because we've been able to use the laws and theories we've derived from them in engineering project. If Newton's data turned out to be BS (and his laws of gravity are BS in turn), then we would not have been able to build impressive bridges and skyscrapers. These days, "false" data usually comes in the form of inaccurate measurements, which can be corrected with new tools.

In a situation where humans enter a different dimension with different physical laws (and yet are somehow able to stay alive), then the first step of the scientific process would be to pull out a ruler and start measuring things to gather data.
But what happens if these "laws" are bended? Would all of our impressive architectures break down? We may have put "laws" in practical uses, but can theses actually prove them? What if these "laws" are, perhaps, just supported by a non-material barrier of science?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:06   Link #2164
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
But what happens if these "laws" are bended? Would all of our impressive architectures break down? We may have put "laws" in practical uses, but can theses actually prove them? What if these "laws" are, perhaps, just supported by a non-material barrier of science?
If the actual physical laws are bended, then yes I would expect structures to collapse everywhere. If on the other hand only our knowledge changes, then it just means we are capable of building even more impressive ones. Being able to use a "law" is evidence that said "law" is adequate for the given engineering purposes, proving that it is in fact correct in that range of values.

What do you mean by "non-material barrier of science?" If such a thing exists, it will be measured and experimented with, and incorporated into our knowledge. If magic exists, wizards study it, and are able derive its properties and harness its power, as in many fantasy settings, it would actually be considered a science.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:12   Link #2165
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
If the actual physical laws are bended, then yes I would expect structures to collapse everywhere. If on the other hand only our knowledge changes, then it just means we are capable of building even more impressive ones. Being able to use a "law" is evidence that said "law" is adequate for the given engineering purposes, proving that it is in fact correct in that range of values.

What do you mean by "non-material barrier of science?" If such a thing exists, it will be measured and experimented with, and incorporated into our knowledge. If magic exists, wizards study it, and are able derive its properties and harness its power, as in many fantasy settings, it would actually be considered a science.
Interesting. Magic *might* be science. Religion *might* be science. Ghosts *might* be science. Aliens *might* be science. And ESP-ers *might* be science. Does making actual practical use of laws confirms it as having enough evidence?

Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-29 at 11:28.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:16   Link #2166
Cub-Sama
Member of DOLLARS
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the magical land of Moonswell pass
Age: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Interesting theory. So, what's *your* religion?
Christianity why do you ask?
__________________

We are DOLLARS, credit for sig goes to CMHerrera-chan
Cub-Sama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:19   Link #2167
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cub-Sama View Post
Christianity why do you ask?
The same reason why you ask: curiosity. No, I just wanted to learn more of how people's religion affect what and how they comment on religion-related issues. I would've been surprised if you said "atheist".
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:38   Link #2168
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Interesting. Magic *might* be science. Religion *might* be science. Ghosts *might* be science. Aliens *might* be science. And ESP-ers *might* be science. Does making actual practical use of laws confirms it as enough evidence?
If the real world was like Dungeons and Dragons, where magic, deities, and other dimensions are a part of nature, then it would all be subject to scientific investigation, and the laws they follow would be determined and put to use.

The reason why these things are not considered science in the real world is because all the data that can be attributed to them can either all be debunked, or attributed to normal natural laws. Without any data (which can be as simple as an indisputable sighting of an unknown phenomena), there can be no measurements or experimentation, hence why the "supernatural" is not considered science.

As for "enough evidence," making practical use of what we know only confirms that we have "enough" to accomplish what we want. It does not confirm that we have "all" the evidence. More evidence would either confirm our existing laws, or add to them so that our approximations become closer to the actual truth.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 11:43   Link #2169
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
If the real world was like Dungeons and Dragons, where magic, deities, and other dimensions are a part of nature, then it would all be subject to scientific investigation, and the laws they follow would be determined and put to use.

The reason why these things are not considered science in the real world is because all the data that can be attributed to them can either all be debunked, or attributed to normal natural laws. Without any data (which can be as simple as an indisputable sighting of an unknown phenomena), there can be no measurements or experimentation, hence why the "supernatural" is not considered science.
But you agree that it can't be be both disproved and proved its truth as science?

Quote:
As for "enough evidence," making practical use of what we know only confirms that we have "enough" to accomplish what we want. It does not confirm that we have "all" the evidence.
Enough to *practically* accomplish what we want. But I guess its better to "keep going" than dwell on nowhere.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:01   Link #2170
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
But you agree that it can't be be both disproved and proved its truth as science?
Science has not "disproved" magic, ghosts, or God, because there is no evidence on which to make that determination. Instead, it is the evidence of such which is disproven, on the basis of being explainable by existing laws. In other words, science acknowledges that magic, ghost, or God might exist, but there is no evidence of such.

If God were to make a real-life appearance, scientists would acknowledge the existence of a powerful being, and attempt to determine what the limits of its powers are. In that case, denying would be considered unscientific.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:11   Link #2171
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
Science has not "disproved" magic, ghosts, or God, because there is no evidence on which to make that determination. Instead, it is the evidence of such which is disproven, on the basis of being explainable by existing laws. In other words, science acknowledges that magic, ghost, or God might exist, but there is no evidence of such.

If God were to make a real-life appearance, scientists would acknowledge the existence of a powerful being, and attempt to determine what the limits of its powers are. In that case, denying would be considered unscientific.
Sounds good enough to me. So, what's your religion?

EDIT: one more thing. The existence of God, Ghosts, and Magic will definitely bend "science" "laws". I guess that's why they're considered "supernatural" and "unscientific"....Although the word usage seems to bother a little with understanding.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:21   Link #2172
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Sounds good enough to me. So, what's your religion?

EDIT: one more thing. The existence of God, Ghosts, and Magic will definitely bend "science" "laws". I guess that's why they're considered "supernatural" and "unscientific"....Although the word usage seems to bother a little with understanding.
I'm atheist. If God(s) actually make an appearance, then I'll believe in their existence.

"Supernatural" means outside of nature... yet if that stuff is actually proven to exist, it would be considered a part of nature and not "supernatural" anymore. Their existence will demonstrate that our current laws are inadequate to explain their existence, but not that they are beyond human understanding for all time.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:28   Link #2173
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
I'm atheist. If God(s) actually make an appearance, then I'll believe in their existence.
Interesting, your way of expressing your knowledge were balanced but I think I did sense an "atheist" there.

Quote:
"Supernatural" means outside of nature... yet if that stuff is actually proven to exist, it would be considered a part of nature and not "supernatural" anymore.
So, until its proven(not implying it will), It can't be called natural? But its also not disproved, am I right? Won't that disqualify its being "supernatural"? For example, the "laws" themselves may not be "natural", since they too aren't proven.

Isn't it really more of a "belief" area?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:40   Link #2174
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
So, until its proven(not implying it will), It can't be called natural? But its also not disproved, am I right? Won't that disqualify its being "supernatural"? For example, the "laws" themselves may not be "natural", since they too aren't proven.
Something that has been disproven is not "supernatural," it is simply "false." Supernatural would fall under the category, "cannot be proven (nor disproven) due to lack of evidence."
The scientific laws are considered "proven" in that it consistently explains the data we have, and can be disproven if new data contradicts it. The laws are human constructs, and are only natural as long as they fit the data.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 12:43   Link #2175
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
Supernatural would fall under the category, "cannot be proven (nor disproven) due to lack of evidence."
Then shouldn't science "laws" be considered as "supernatural"? (as well)

Quote:
The scientific laws are considered "proven" in that it consistently explains the data we have, and can be disproven if new data contradicts it. The laws are human constructs, and are only natural as long as they fit the data.
Does this actually qualify it as proven? Does fitting the data mean proven?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 13:05   Link #2176
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Then shouldn't science "laws" be considered as "supernatural"? (as well)
No, because there is evidence that they are true: scientific laws are created by humans for the purpose of fitting all the data (while theories explain the reasons for the data). If there is not enough evidence, then there will be no law in the first place.

Quote:
Does this actually qualify it as proven? Does fitting the data mean proven?
It's "proven to fit the data," because that's what they were created to do; there is no reason not to believe in it without contradicting evidence, in which case the law is disproven and replaced.
As for scientific theories, they're called theories because they cannot be proven (but can be disproven). Theories make predictions, and there is no certainty that any prediction about the future will always be true, even if an experiment has succeeded hundreds of times in the past.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 13:12   Link #2177
Proto
Knowledge is the solution
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: U. of Pittsburgh, Previously in Mexico City.
Age: 29
Clarifying on the ongoing debate topic, one of the reasons hypothesis regarding God and the whole God concepts cannot be tested or be falsifiable in any sense. From the Wiki article and fasifiability

Quote:
The idea of falsifiability can be used to draw a distinction between falsifiable and nonfalsifiable notions of God. The nonfalsifiable notions describe what we think of as God's transcendental qualities; because they are independent of anything in the physical world, no physical circumstances are sufficient to prove or disprove their existence. By contrast, falsifiable accounts of God are physically definite, and can therefore be thought of as a personification, or "deification," of ideas that, at least purportedly, could be formulated as (read: testable) theories of physics.[16]
In that sense, it is impossible to arrive to the notion of a omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God as described by the Abrahamanic religions by any physical means, given that if he actually were to exist, we cannot assert so through our own means, and if it is a God that we can assert through our own physical means, then it is a much more humble God than the one described by most religions.


In that sense, normally most theologists agree that the matter of God is a matter of faith. faith being the only actually way you can arrive to him. In that case, you cannot actually rationalize the concept of God.
Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 13:30   Link #2178
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cub-Sama View Post
Christianity why do you ask?
I'll ask a follow-up. "Christianity" is a bit vague (actually very vague). What particular sect of Christianity do you belong to?

There's a huge amount of difference between various interpretations of the faith. (all the major faiths have major differences in their various strains).
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 14:05   Link #2179
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Clarifying on the ongoing debate topic, one of the reasons hypothesis regarding God and the whole God concepts cannot be tested or be falsifiable in any sense. From the Wiki article and fasifiability



In that sense, it is impossible to arrive to the notion of a omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God as described by the Abrahamanic religions by any physical means, given that if he actually were to exist, we cannot assert so through our own means, and if it is a God that we can assert through our own physical means, then it is a much more humble God than the one described by most religions.


In that sense, normally most theologists agree that the matter of God is a matter of faith. faith being the only actually way you can arrive to him. In that case, you cannot actually rationalize the concept of God.
He's also supposed to be "omnibenevolent", which, combined with his other omnis, I find inconsistent with the state of the world. Of course, it might just be a problem with the notion of benevolence. But if he's not benevolent as we people mean the word, then why should we people use that word to describe him?

I mean, He might have some kind of moral system where bad things sometimes happening to good people is good, and He might be its perfect expression - but if a man rejoiced about babies getting stuffed in fridges, we'd call him a jerk, not benevolent.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-29, 14:07   Link #2180
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
we'd call him a jerk, not benevolent.
True. But Christians are too scared lest they blaspheme and burn in hell. ooohhh....
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.