Descartes' Second Rule vs. Uncertainty

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
True, but knowledge is not just a knowledge of facts. Knowledge is a collection of that which you believe, and you derive that which you believe from your "reasoned analysis of sensations", don't you?

That I don't disagree with, but when you leave out the observation of reality and with that I mean a structured and scientific exploration of the phenomena of reality, you would then suggest that to come up with a viable theory of reality, you could sit at your desk, and just think and reason, and then all of a sudden can "create" a viable theory on reality.

Which is not how it goes, of course.

How did physicists happen to come to know about these things, which they cannot observe in any way?

They did that because to explain the phenomena we CAN observe (for example sound and light) we wanted to have a scientific explenation of these pehenomena. And we came up with a theory of light for example as a wave phenomena. A wave has properties of Energy, frequency and wavelengt, which interrelate in an orderly way.

E = hf (energy = Planck constant times frequency)

Since the variable in this formula is the frequency, it was then assumed that light also exists beyond the frequencies of visable light.
In fact, other forms of light were already known, but they were seen as different phenomena as visible light. For example heat radiation, we can sense, but we can not see infrared light.
The theory of light explained what the connection was between these various phenomena.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by drag
And what is material-cause ?

Let me help you out here LG.
What you call material-cause (don'no why) is
what we observe.
So who's view biased ?
Of the person who only reasons with what is
observed or of the person who, in addition,
assumes that our mind creates what is observed
and all the various additional assumptions
that are connected to this enitial unprovable
assumption ?

Peace and long life.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
They did that because to explain the phenomena
we CAN observe (for example sound and light)
we wanted to have a scientific explenation
of these pehenomena. And we came up with a
theory of light for example as a wave
phenomena. A wave has properties of Energy,
frequency and wavelengt, which interrelate
in an orderly way.

E = hf (energy = Planck constant times frequency)

Since the variable in this formula is the
frequency, it was then assumed that
light also exists beyond the frequencies
of visable light.

In fact, other forms of light were already
known, but they were seen as different
phenomena as visible light. For example
heat radiation, we can sense, but we
can not see infrared light.
The theory of light explained what the
connection was between these various phenomena.

So, basicly what science does is to try to assume
the most direct connection that is possible.
Minimum relations and minimum entities.

Live long and prosper.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
So, basicly what science does is to try to assume
the most direct connection that is possible.
Minimum relations and minimum entities.

If you mean that a scientific explenation, which could in principle be based on the existence of a Giant Big Applepie that exists outside time and space, and connects in a spiritial way to everything there is and can explain everything there is, to explain for instance gravity, and we have an alternative theory, that explain gravity based on interaction between massive matter on a distance, it is indeed true that the Giant Big Applepie, will be eliminated from scientific reason, and we will adopt the more simple and provable option, indeed.