seebs

I see. The ball didn't actually fall when I dropped it.

Once again, you're talking about *conclusions*, not *actual occurrences*.

Starboy

seebs, please stop being so dense. To claim something is "true" IS a conclusion. Why do you continue to equate the idea that claiming a result supports a hypothesis is the same as claiming that the results and the hypothesis are "true" or that even the claim is "true"? You realize that this is another fine example of first century thinking. It is how you get people to believe in a load of nonsense like supernatural religion by claiming it is "revealed truth".

Starboy

seebs

I don't think I'm being dense, I just don't think we're communicating.

I'm just saying that *caring* whether a result supports a hypothesis presupposes that the *result* is true.

If I put water in a cold place, and it freezes, and I say this supports my theory about water freezing in cold, I am assuming the truth of the *observation* that "water froze".

That is a truth claim as absolute as any other, and it is *necessary* for science; we must believe that something really happens, somewhere, or we have nothing to measure, and no data to support our theories.

Ahh, the old bogeyman, "first century thinking". I don't think you've ever offered a clear definition of what this is, or why it's bad, such that your definition has anything at all to do with the apparent usage.

Anyway, by making the assertion that supernatural religion is "nonsense", you, too, participate in the "truth/falsehood" value system. You can't avoid it.

Starboy

seebs, I think I have a better understanding of how you are using that very ambiguious term "truth". I have seen this before among philosophers. You are equating truth with reality. When you to say that something is true what you mean is that it is real. As I have asked philosophers before, why not just say it is real? But seebs, even you must recognize that only the person observing the real event can claim it to be "true". All other interested and critical parties will require some evidence that the claimed event was real. This is why an important part of science is verification of results by unrelated experimenters. In science the kind of "truth" you proport is not assumed to be "true" in the sense you are talking about. A scientist would say that there is evidence, (lab books, published papers, the accounts of other scientists) that support the claim that the events of the experiment were real. That is why scientists are required to keep lab notebooks and important records of experimental results. It is for the reason that proported real events are not assumed to be "true". Any claims of their reality must be supported by evidence. There have been several recent cases of scientific fraud that when investigated revealed that there was no evidence to support the claimed facts.

I can understand why a person with a first century religious mindset would have so much diffuculty with this concept. It was a well accepted practice of the time to accept as "truth" what the oracle said just because the oracle said it. (revealed truth) Seebs, we don't do that anymore in the twenty first century.

Starboy

seebs

No, I mean that the statement is true.

So, let's say I pick a ball up, and let it go, and it falls.

The statement "the ball fell" is true. The statement "the ball hovered" is false.

Without the ability to make true/false distinctions about statements about reality, we have no science.

So... No, that isn't what I mean. I meant what I said.

Er. Events are not true or false; statements about them are true or false. Events are the reality about which we are making statements.

The point is, the statement's truth is *independant* of anyone's opinion or observation.

And all of that "evidence" depends on the assertion that truth claims about events are meaningful and can be said to be "correct".

Why don't you just move this into your .signature? It's content-free, you say it all the time, and it's really just a social noise.

I think it's pretty clear that you haven't understood which truth claims I'm talking about yet. We can try again if you want.

Observation: I dropped a ball and it fell.
Truth claim: "The ball fell."
False claim: "The ball hovered."

My "evidence" for gravity depends on my willingness to accept that my description of the event is "true". If we don't accept that, I have no evidence.

Starboy

That may be how you think science is done, but I have never seen it done that way. There is too much error and uncertainty in even the simplest experiment. At best an experiment produces results that support a claim or theory. If any scientist did claim "truth" I am sure they would be highly suspect if not laughed out of the presentation. I suspect your confusion is the result of your interchangable use of the words "truth" and "reality".

Starboy

seebs

Given that I've described the distinction I make between them, I think it's fair to say that I do not use the terms "interchangeably".

You still seem to be moving my claim from what I said to something else entirely before responding.

At best an experiment produces results that support or claim a theory. Yes. Science depends on the assumption that we can make meaningful statements about those results; that it is possible to be "right" or "wrong" in describing reality.

Starboy

Seebs, your example illustraites philosophy not science. For it to be science a hypothesis would have to be presented, such as

------------------------------------------------------------------
First Scientist:
Hypothesis: "Every time I let go of a ball it will fall."

First Scientist notes in lab book:

1/6/2003 6:30P - Let go of a ball and it fell.
1/6/2003 6:31P - Let go of a ball and it fell.
1/6/2003 6:32P - Let go of a ball and it fell.

Conclusion: Experimental results are consistent with the hypothesis.

First Scientist writes a paper outlining experimental apparatus, methods for analysing data and so forth.

Second Scientist located on ISS reads paper reads and sets out to reproduce First Scientists work.

Second Scientist:
I will conduct an experiment to reproduce the results claimed by First Scientist.

The hypothesis of First Scientist is:
Hypothesis: "Every time I let go of a ball it will fall"

Second Scientist notes in lab book:

1/7/2003 7:00P - Let go of ball and it just stayed there.
1/7/2003 7:01P - Let go of ball and it just stayed there.
1/7/2003 7:02P - Let go of ball and it just stayed there.

Conclusion: I repeated the experiment as described by First Scientist and the results of the experiment were not consistent with the hypothesis.

Second Scientist publishes results.

..... (the ongoing story of science ensues)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is the branch of human knowledge dedicated to discovering and exploring reality. Unfortunately the scientific method is more like a game of hot and cold, and there is no one there to tell you when you have the right answer. All you get is guess and try, guess and try. There is no way to know if your model or map of reality is missing anything or is getting the right answers for the wrong reasons. The universe didn't come with an owners manual. We figure it out the best we can and there is no one there to tell us when we have got it right. To paraphrase a popular love song from sometime back "Whats truth got to to do with it? Whats truth but a second hand notion?"

Starboy

seebs

You still don't get it:

For those observations to lead us anywhere, we have to *believe* them.

We have to, in other words, accept them as true.

beyelzu

amie, if you meet a hundred atheists and we are all assholes then yes you should assume that atheists are all assholes until proven differently.

i have never had a bad experience with any muslim. my problem with islam is two fold

the islamic world has no history of liberalism in a classic since. in christianity, most christians veiw the fundamentalists as beingbackwards. the western world had the protestant reformation, the age of enlightenment, and the renassaince, the muslim world had none of these things. so most christians do use value judgments in their day to day life and not just he words of the bible. the idea that we can agree to disagree is part of that classical liberalism heritage.

according to islam, muslims must take the koran literally, the exact words of god. also islam teaches that any peace with a non-islamic nation can only be conditional because ultimately the islamic countries must make the infidels believe in allah, by sword if necessary. the islamic world is largely stuck back in the middle ages. they do not value freedom. they value virtue. so if you must torture someone to save their soul then so be it.