Don't you hate it when people refute established/proven facts?

[KingNothing]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes an established fact?

One of these situations came up today. A girl in one of my classes tried to claim that evolution is just a theory and isn't any more proven than (biblical stuff). I tried to explain to her that evolution has been studied, witnessed, and isn't even up for debate. Whether or not it was the start of creation as we know it is what is widely debated.

Another example of this that I have come across is the existence of the G-spot in women.

Also, the majority of germans still believe that wind blowing on them (even in 90-degree weather) will cause them to get sick.

 

[dextercioby]

Another example of this that I have come across is the existence of the G-spot in women.

Is she the same girl with the evolution denial...?If so,make her an offer she can't refuse...

Daniel.

 

[Icebreaker]

There's no cure for ignorance.

On the other hand, I often meet new theorems with skepticism until I fully understand the proof. Until then, I refuse to acknowledge it. I guess it's kind of hypocritical.

 

[dextercioby]

Since u mentioned 'theorem',I completely trust mathematics...Never failed me so far,on the other hand,i failed her...

Daniel.

 

[Pengwuino]

Since u mentioned 'theorem',I completely trust mathematics...

I don't believe in integrals! lol

What i also hate is when someone says they don't 'belive' something even when there's a huge amount of proven facts to back it up or its highly. For example, that earthquaek that caused that tsunami; scientists said the Earth's rotation was altered a tad bit and some people i know go "oh i don't believe that for a second". Or you can go "no, that steam from that nuclear power plant is not dangerous" and people will go "i don't believe that!". I also hate when people make stupid assumptions based on the situation. For example, another nuclear example matter of fact, when people go "We can't build mroe nuclear power plants! They will blow up and white out the whole city". Now, unfortunately the real 'disaster's effect is much worse, but i hate when people say that because they think of nuclear bombs and hear "nuclear" power plant and they just connect the two immediately.

 

[dextercioby]

There's a ****load amount of evidence that integrals exist...

Daniel.

 

[Danger]

There's no cure for ignorance.

On the other hand, I often meet new theorems with skepticism until I fully understand the proof. Until then, I refuse to acknowledge it. I guess it's kind of hypocritical.

Skepticism is good; it's what keeps science honest. Blindly refusing to allow for the reality of something that's possible, let alone proven, is where the ignorance comes into it. The best way to deal with it is to either ignore it, or to propose something utterly implausible sounding, that you can prove beyond any shadow of doubt right before their eyes after they've being going on about the impossibility of it for several minutes. (Preferably done in front of an audience. )

 

[Pengwuino]

I like when people say atoms don't exist because you can't see em.

Well i look out and can't see New york city but hey, i think its there ;)

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, you know, that's a philosophical question. Do atoms exist or are they only a good mathematical model? I'd say that the line between those two things may not exist, for anything. But if you take existence as opposed to modeling as concrete daily reality, then yes, it would not be implausible for a smart educated person to deny atoms, although he would have to note that atoms as abstract concepts do provide much explanatory power for certain things.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it's relatively safe to say that atoms exist. There is something underlying all of those chemical equations that the word 'atom' refers to. The real philosophical question is what exactly these atoms are, not just functionally, but ontologically.

 

[BicycleTree]

It is relatively safe to hold that atoms exist and also tenable to hold that they do not exist. Almost anything at all can be said not to exist on the basis that it is merely an explanatory device with no deeper significance, since almost anything is only known through effects that might be produced by that thing's existence but also, in every case, might arise for other reasons. I may be about to sound stupid because I have been reading Brian Greene's popular science presentation and have no actual knowledge of this, but I so gather that in some string theories dimensions can have size R, and in others the corresponding dimensions have size 1/R, yet these theories are equivalent because of other factors. It's not impossible to imagine that in a similar fashion at some time in the future the idea of atoms may be replaced with some other, equivalent idea, or perhaps with an idea with greater explanatory power.

 

[Pengwuino]

lol well we're normally not going "God these people are idiots" when arguing with people on such highly philosophical reasonings. Plus in a sense, we do know atoms exist as far as "something incredibly small with these dimensions and characteristics that we can see that meets the correct dimenions". This may actually be all that you need because that basically is the basis for "proving" anything exists. Ever see that IBM thing... let me get it...

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/atom-ibm.jpg

Check that out :D One of my physics profs likes that lil thing. He says there's a joke out there that says another one was made that said "Bill Gates Sucks" lol.

 

[loseyourname]

My point was that, whatever you call them and whatever they are, something real is referred to by the word 'atom.' In fact, we can actually directly observe molecules using powerful electron microscopes. Something is there, whether or not it conforms to any currently accepted model.

 

[BicycleTree]

Certainly something is producing the results of those experiments that are currently explained by atoms, but if the mechanism producing that is nothing like the current conception of an atom, or more accurately if it is possible to conceive of some mechanism producing that which is nothing like the current conception of an atom and has greater explanatory power, then would the people now calling the mechanism "atoms" be wrong? In that circumstance I think they would.

Personally, I do believe in atoms, although I care less about what supposedly "is" there than I do about how things functionally interact, one reason I'm in computer science.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well when you argue with someone on the idea of atoms, they usually think the whole idea of something that small is propostorous because they can't see it with their naked eye

 

[BicycleTree]

That is a good point that most people denying the existence of atoms haven't thought it through so much. In that case I think that they probably should be judged on their real reasons for denying the existence of atoms. If they are doing it for blind religious reasons ("it's not in the Bible") or if they are doing it because the whole "science" thing is confusing to them and they're in denial of it, then yes, they are merely denying established facts. Idiots.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well when you argue with someone on the idea of atoms, they usually think the whole idea of something that small is propostorous because they can't see it with their naked eye

If that's their reason, they are denying atoms because the concept seems unusual and they don't want to change the way they think. Not an excuse.

 

[KingNothing]

I agree that many, many people have very very bad logic when it comes to denying things.

"Raw cookie dough is fine, I've eaten it all my life and I haven't died yet."

 

[JamesU]

I like when people say atoms don't exist because you can't see em.

Well i look out and can't see New york city but hey, i think its there ;)

have you ever heard of a scanning tunneling microscope? it can see atoms.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah i posted that pic of the IBM thing lol.

 

[wasteofo2]

It's important to consider how many examples there are out there of things which were at one point considered "fact", but now are known to be completely false. Evolution is totally observable, but in general, humans have had a long history of thinking they understand something perfectly, only to be completely wrong.

"Take germs for example. Eighteenth century, no such thing. Notta. Nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person anyway. Ah-uh-huh. Along comes this doctor ah-ah-ah Simulice, Simulice. Simulice comes along. He's trying to convince people, well other doctors mainly, that's there's teeny, tiny invisible bad things called "germs" that get into your body and make you sick. He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do they call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, up to the 20th century, last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole, I go into order a burger at this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. James, he picks it up, wipes it off. He hands it to me like it's all o-k. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot made up so they could sell disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right?"

You can listen to that little monologue here if you want http://new.wavlist.com/movies/151/12m-germs.wav

 

[Pengwuino]

I think that's different wasteof02.

In that case, someone was called crazy even though he had facts and had a basis for his argument.

Our cases are people who have arguments and facts and the people who don't blieve it are the crazy ones.

 

[wasteofo2]

I think that's different wasteof02.

In that case, someone was called crazy even though he had facts and had a basis for his argument.

Our cases are people who have arguments and facts and the people who don't blieve it are the crazy ones.

Well, for another example, look to the aincent Greek geocentric model of the Universe. The Greeks largely (probabally exclusively, but I don't know that for a fact) believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, but they observed that all the celestial bodies did not orbit around Earth in an orderly fashion. They studied and studied the paths of the stars and planets, and by using a complex system of widely varied orbits within orbits, they constructed a model of the paths that celestial bodies took while orbiting the earth. It was complex, but it worked. With these models, one could predict where a certain star would be in the sky during a certain time of the year, and how its path would change over the years, and to the Greeks, since this model worked, it seemed to be the very complex truth about how celestial bodies moved.

 

[franznietzsche]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes an established fact?

You mean like Galileo and Copernicus?


I couldn't resist. While i agree on a certain level, that attitude is dangerous, it reeks of 16th century dogma the way it is worded.

Might better be stated: Tries to refute that which is supported by clear evidence without any contrary evidence. That makes an idiot.

 

[Danger]

it seemed to be the very complex truth about how celestial bodies moved.

Those people, although mistaken, were making an honest effort to understand how nature worked. They also believed that the brain was an air-conditioning unit to keep the blood cool, because the convolutions and extensive bloodflow provided a great radiator. It never occurred to them that you think with it. That doesn't mean that their doctors didn't try to improve their knowledge. Believing something with no evidence to the contrary isn't stupid, but seeking proof of it is better.

You mean like Galileo and Copernicus?

No, like the people who ignored them. They weren't unaccepting of established fact; they were unaccepting of established dogma. They were the ones who had the facts, to the limits of their ability.

 

[ron damon]

Good thing you don't work in the science of economics field. It gives you a headache to have to repeatedly prove that capitalism works and leftism doesn't. That's why I moved into physics. There one doesn't have to prove the obvious a million times over, like arguing over and over again that the Earth revolves around the sun, and thus can hope to actually get some progress done.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The trouble is that sometimes the line between dogma and fact are not so clear. Most students are taught facts and dogma with no distinction between them.

Ten years ago it was considered a FACT that the cosmic expansion was slowing down. To suggest othewise was not only silly in light of the evidence, it would seemingly violate the conservation laws. In short, it was absurd to even consider! So, if we assume a Bohrian posture [all that matters is what we measure], we would have to say that the facts can change. So where is the line?

 

[SpaceTiger]

I hate it when people refuse to believe something despite overwhelming evidence in favor of it. I don't mind so much when people refuse to go along with my intuition on one problem or another. If someone had said to me prior to the discovery of the accelerating universe:

"We can't be sure the universe isn't accelerating because we haven't actually observed its deceleration."

I would have agreed with them, though I'm sure I would also have felt an accelerating universe unlikely at the time. That's all perfectly alright, though, just part of the scientific process.

 

[matthyaouw]

Skepticism is good; it's what keeps science honest. Blindly refusing to allow for the reality of something that's possible, let alone proven, is where the ignorance comes into it.

Agreed. Skepticism is only of value when the skeptic is educated enough to realize why it is that they are skeptical.


My pet peeve about people who deny established fact is when they give the reason 'I don't like the idea.' I have a creationist friend, and in a discussion with him, one of his arguements was "I don't like the idea that we were once apes." Oh? And I don't like the idea that a sexually transmitted virus is wiping out millions in Africa, but its bloody well not going to go away If I express a dislike for it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hate it when people refuse to believe something despite overwhelming evidence in favor of it. I don't mind so much when people refuse to go along with my intuition on one problem or another. If someone had said to me prior to the discovery of the accelerating universe:

"We can't be sure the universe isn't accelerating because we haven't actually observed its deceleration."

I would have agreed with them, though I'm sure I would also have felt an accelerating universe unlikely at the time. That's all perfectly alright, though, just part of the scientific process.

But that's not the way that it was. Ten years ago the evidence for a decelerating universe was considered to be overwhelming and for all practical purposes, irrefutable. So the facts change. It was taught as a fact.

 

[Pengwuino]

lol oh yes, love the "i don't like the idea" crowd (whats with you guys ragging on creationists all the time lol).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Time is a constant. Time is a variable. The facts change.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But that's not the way that it was. Ten years ago the evidence for a decelerating universe was considered to be overwhelming and for all practical purposes, irrefutable. So the facts change. It was taught as a fact.

As far as I know, there was no direct evidence for a decelerating universe prior to the SNIa measurements, so I'm not sure who you were talking to. People certainly assumed that it would be decelerating, but nobody claimed to have measured it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting. So this was taught as a fact even though we had no direct measurements? This surprises me since for all of my life the question of the mass of the universe [which has increased by a factor of ten in recent years, another changing fact] and whether the universe would collapse or continue expanding, were the only real questions. For a time, the published materials set the [measured?] values right at the limit such that we couldn't tell what would happen. So how this was all inferred, I don't know.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Interesting. So this was taught as a fact even though we had no direct measurements? This surprises me since for all of my life the question of the mass of the universe [which has increased by a factor of ten in recent years, another changing fact] and whether or not the universe would collapse or continue expanding, was the only real question. For a time, the published materials set the [measured?] values right at the limit such that we couldn't tell what would happen. So how this was all inferred, I don't know.

I agree with you that it was naive for the astronomical community, but that's how it goes. Here's a quote from a 1998 SNIa paper, immediately prior to the acceleration discovery:

Although many other methods for measuring the global curvature and cosmological deceleration exist, none has yet delivered a definitive result.

- Schmidt et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 46

This sentence sums it up really nicely. Basically, they were assuming deceleration despite having no measurement of it!

Fortunately, there are scientists in the community who don't take such a myopic view of things. A member of this department, Bohdan Paczynski, was a dissenter of this sort on the issue of gamma-ray bursts. The community had collectively decided that they were galactic in origin, but he kept pressing the evidence for extragalactic origins. In the end, the evidence was on his side, so he eventually won out, but not without a long fight.

If you ask me, we're in the same position today with inflation. Many are simply assuming its truth despite its producing no observable predictions (other than the observations it was originally meant to explain). It may be true, I'll grant, but we should not be assuming it.

 

[Nereid]

You sure do work with some interesting people SpaceTiger!

Wrt the thread topic ... how many readers lived through the BSE epidemic, esp in the UK? Wouldn't you say that a certain scepticism, even disdain, for 'official scientific wisdom' would be an entirely rational response to the UK Dept of Agriculture (as it was then) and its unforgivable pronouncements?

Maybe I get more peeved by over-simplified, distorted and generally misleading popularisations than blissful ignorance (OTOH, wilful ignorance is quite a different kettle of worms )

 

[ZapperZ]

It is relatively safe to hold that atoms exist and also tenable to hold that they do not exist. Almost anything at all can be said not to exist on the basis that it is merely an explanatory device with no deeper significance, since almost anything is only known through effects that might be produced by that thing's existence but also, in every case, might arise for other reasons. I may be about to sound stupid because I have been reading Brian Greene's popular science presentation and have no actual knowledge of this, but I so gather that in some string theories dimensions can have size R, and in others the corresponding dimensions have size 1/R, yet these theories are equivalent because of other factors. It's not impossible to imagine that in a similar fashion at some time in the future the idea of atoms may be replaced with some other, equivalent idea, or perhaps with an idea with greater explanatory power.

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't use something as speculative as what you read in Greene's book as a demonstraton against the concrete <no pun intended> idea of the atom.

The person who denies the existence of an atom lacks an alternative "model" then to explain the whole set of observations that have been attributed to the existence of the atom. So based on just this, it isn't rational to deny its existence when there isn't a plausible alternative. It is not as if it hasn't been producing results that are consistent with experimental observation - we are not talking about String Theory here, folks.

Zz.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes--someone who rationally denies the existence of the atom would be rejecting the idea of abstract models in general. Saying what is there is an act of faith. The only thing that is not an act of faith (or less of one) is the effects that are produced on one's equipment. A rational atom-denier might say that equipment appears to act _as if_ things like atoms existed, but would consider atoms themselves as merely a mental convenience, a mathematical curiosity. He might say that there is no reality to anything other than the effects it produces, so nothing absolutely exists and the idea of objects is useful but empty.

By the way, liberalism vs. conservatism is by no means a settled issue. Take Finland, a very liberal country--guess their economy's down the drain, eh? Or not.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes--someone who rationally denies the existence of the atom would be rejecting the idea of abstract models in general. Saying what is there is an act of faith. The only thing that is not an act of faith (or less of one) is the effects that are produced on one's equipment. A rational atom-denier might say that equipment appears to act _as if_ things like atoms existed, but would consider atoms themselves as merely a mental convenience, a mathematical curiosity. He might say that there is no reality to anything other than the effects it produces, so nothing absolutely exists and the idea of objects is useful but empty.

Then why not go even a step further and question the "reality" of the effect? We then get to the absurdity that nothing is real, a very popular conversation in philosophy that has no end. We can go even MORE absurd than that and question the reality of the idea that there is no reality. Then we get into a convoluted paradox.

As an experimentalist, I find it highly amusing, not to mention, utterly ridiculous, of this line of thought. The central pillar of experimental physics, which is the reproducibility of observations, appears to be either an unimportant or a trivialized factor in these endless discussion. You'll understand if I sometime wish some of these people will just stop yapping about "existence" of something or not and just simply DO stuff. The degree of certainty of the existence of the atom is greater than the degree of certainty of the statement that there is no reality to so-and-so. The former is quantifiable and verifiable, the latter can't and is only a matter of tastes.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes an established fact?

Of course, you happened to choose examples that are not irrefutable.

One of these situations came up today. A girl in one of my classes tried to claim that evolution is just a theory and isn't any more proven than (biblical stuff). I tried to explain to her that evolution has been studied, witnessed, and isn't even up for debate. Whether or not it was the start of creation as we know it is what is widely debated.

Technically, it's not proven, but upheld by a preponderance of evidence. Evolution is a theory, that's why we call it the Theory of evolution. Of course, that evolution happens is considered a fact. On the other hand, even if we found a serious flaw in the argument for evolution, that doesn't make the creationist (or any other) argument suddenly correct. Disproving one theory doesn't prove another theory.

Another example of this that I have come across is the existence of the G-spot in women.

In what regard is this an indisputable or proven fact? Anecdotally, women report an area of greater sensitivity in the vagina, but do all women experience this? Plenty of women also anecdotally report not experiencing any different sensation in this area. And anatomists don't identify any special structure within the vagina to account for it. It may not even be the vagina, per se that is involved in the sensation experienced by stimulation of this area, but stimulation of closely positioned pelvic nerves or the urethra and/or bladder, which can be palpated through the vaginal wall in this area.

Also, the majority of germans still believe that wind blowing on them (even in 90-degree weather) will cause them to get sick.

I don't even know where this came from? Majority opinion can change rather quickly. Have you polled all Germans to find out what they believe? Or are you refuting that wind blowing on you can make you sick? The wind itself, no, that won't make you sick, but if there is an outbreak of an airborne virus, then the wind carrying that virus could lead to illness, as could the wind carrying pollutants.

Very few things in science are "irrefutable facts." It's dangerous to take such a rigid view of scientific findings, as others have pointed out above. Afterall, tomorrow, someone could find the evidence that disproves what we believe to be irrefutable today.

 

[Monique]

I too think it is healthy to have discussions where commonly established facts are challenged, it makes you look up the facts and evaluate their value. A good scientist is curious and does not take anything for granted. There are enough papers published in Science and Nature that were later refuted.

 

[BicycleTree]

Then why not go even a step further and question the "reality" of the effect? We then get to the absurdity that nothing is real, a very popular conversation in philosophy that has no end. We can go even MORE absurd than that and question the reality of the idea that there is no reality. Then we get into a convoluted paradox.

As an experimentalist, I find it highly amusing, not to mention, utterly ridiculous, of this line of thought. The central pillar of experimental physics, which is the reproducibility of observations, appears to be either an unimportant or a trivialized factor in these endless discussion. You'll understand if I sometime wish some of these people will just stop yapping about "existence" of something or not and just simply DO stuff. The degree of certainty of the existence of the atom is greater than the degree of certainty of the statement that there is no reality to so-and-so. The former is quantifiable and verifiable, the latter can't and is only a matter of tastes.

Zz.

Main point:
Claiming an atom exists is the act of faith, and a philosophical conjecture; in pure experimentalism the only question is how to predict the outcome of the next experiment. Meta-questions about the system you have made to help you predict such things, of which the existence of the atom is one, are philosophy, not pure experimentalism.

Secondary point:
Solipsism is a valid path of reasoning, though very strange (and personally I do not believe it), but it is not equivalent to reasoning from effects instead of objects. Basically, someone who reasons from effects instead of objects picks a class of observation to regard as solid (the class of "effects") and regards everything else as ephemeral. One way to pick that class of solid observation is the class of things that can be fairly directly perceived by the human senses, including the human senses of other experimentalists; there are other ways.

One can pick the class of solid observation as the class of one's perceptions, and that is solipsism, but merely reasoning from effects instead of objects does not have to go to this extreme.

 

[KingNothing]

Technically, it's not proven, but upheld by a preponderance of evidence. Evolution is a theory, that's why we call it the Theory of evolution. Of course, that evolution happens is considered a fact. On the other hand, even if we found a serious flaw in the argument for evolution, that doesn't make the creationist (or any other) argument suddenly correct. Disproving one theory doesn't prove another theory.

The word "proven"'s semantics can be argued, but denying the existence of evolution without any counter-evidcence is still basically crackpot-ish.

In what regard is this an indisputable or proven fact? Anecdotally, women report an area of greater sensitivity in the vagina, but do all women experience this? Plenty of women also anecdotally report not experiencing any different sensation in this area. And anatomists don't identify any special structure within the vagina to account for it. It may not even be the vagina, per se that is involved in the sensation experienced by stimulation of this area, but stimulation of closely positioned pelvic nerves or the urethra and/or bladder, which can be palpated through the vaginal wall in this area.

No, of course not all women like g-spot stimulation, just as not all women like (name any other sexual act). Something doesn't have to be true everywhere in order for it to be true anywhere. What I meant was that anyone who says that there is no such thing as a G-Spot is wrong.

Even if the G-Spot is 'just' the stimulation of nearby nerves through the vaginal wall, that's not an argument that refutes its existence, it merely explains how it works.

I don't even know where this came from? Majority opinion can change rather quickly. Have you polled all Germans to find out what they believe? Or are you refuting that wind blowing on you can make you sick? The wind itself, no, that won't make you sick, but if there is an outbreak of an airborne virus, then the wind carrying that virus could lead to illness, as could the wind carrying pollutants.

It came from germany, that's where it came from! And as a matter of fact, I have taken a rather good poll of germans if I do say so myself. I've spent around 4 months of my life in germany, visiting all the major cultural centers. Let me put it this way: We were driving out of Hamburg, 4 of us in the car. Like 90 degrees F outside (no air conditionaing in german cars)..I asked if I could open the window, they all collectively said no. I asked why, and they said they would get sick because of the wind.

They weren't talking about airborne viruses or anything like that. Just the wind. Also, my HS German teacher once noted (she spent her first 15 years in germany) that she was very surprised when she came to America that we allowed the wind to blow on us, and that she was even more surprised when she found out it was not unhealthy.



Skepticism is one thing, but denying established concepts (such as the existence of the atom) is not the same.

 

[ZapperZ]

Main point:
Claiming an atom exists is the act of faith, and a philosophical conjecture; in pure experimentalism the only question is how to predict the outcome of the next experiment. Meta-questions about the system you have made to help you predict such things, of which the existence of the atom is one, are philosophy, not pure experimentalism.

Counter point: what you stated is not even testable, nor reproducible. If claiming at atom exists is an act of faith, then claiming the validity of your idea is, at best, the same thing, and at worse, a speculation. You lack the ability to prove that what you stated is valid. You can't even use it to make prediction of the outcome of any experiment.

Secondary point:
Solipsism is a valid path of reasoning, though very strange (and personally I do not believe it), but it is not equivalent to reasoning from effects instead of objects. Basically, someone who reasons from effects instead of objects picks a class of observation to regard as solid (the class of "effects") and regards everything else as ephemeral. One way to pick that class of solid observation is the class of things that can be fairly directly perceived by the human senses, including the human senses of other experimentalists; there are other ways.

One can pick the class of solid observation as the class of one's perceptions, and that is solipsism, but merely reasoning from effects instead of objects does not have to go to this extreme.

You are assuming that (i) there is a separation between "effects" and "objects" and (ii) that this separation can be verified and detected. This is no more real or valid than saying an atom exists. I put it to you that everything about YOU is a series of properties that are measurable and detectable, so that when someone else observes you, that person is comparing previous sets of measurements with the present set of measurements, and then make the recognition. I will also put it to you that EVERYTHING that you recognize and accept as being "real" ARE defined the same way, via a set of properties that you have remembered. This is not unlike an atom. The only difference being that you do not have the ability to view an atom with your eyes using the very limited electromagnetic spectrum of the visible range.

But if you look closely (and understand how it is described), the existence of an atom has a higher degree of certainty than any philosophical idea. I find it strange that one uses something with a lower degree of certainty to refute something that has a higher degree of certainty. I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

 

[The Rev]

I got into things with a Jehova's Witness about evolution.

She made the point that something as complex as a human couldn't just be "blown together by the wind." So, as I saw that she did not understand how Natural Selection worked, I explained it to her, point by point. She listened, nodded, listened, and after I was done, said, "Yes, but it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution, because something as complex as a person couldn't just be blown together by the wind."

After that, I took it as the rule that most people don't want their beliefs messed with, expecially by something as trivial as reality.

\infty

The Rev

 

[BicycleTree]

Counter point: what you stated is not even testable, nor reproducible. If claiming at atom exists is an act of faith, then claiming the validity of your idea is, at best, the same thing, and at worse, a speculation. You lack the ability to prove that what you stated is valid. You can't even use it to make prediction of the outcome of any experiment.

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean here. Claiming the validity of which idea?

The idea that atoms exist cannot be used to predict the outcome of any experiment. Only the mathematics (which can be interpreted by some to mean that atoms exist) can be used to predict the outcome of experiments.

You are assuming that (i) there is a separation between "effects" and "objects" and (ii) that this separation can be verified and detected. This is no more real or valid than saying an atom exists. I put it to you that everything about YOU is a series of properties that are measurable and detectable, so that when someone else observes you, that person is comparing previous sets of measurements with the present set of measurements, and then make the recognition. I will also put it to you that EVERYTHING that you recognize and accept as being "real" ARE defined the same way, via a set of properties that you have remembered. This is not unlike an atom. The only difference being that you do not have the ability to view an atom with your eyes using the very limited electromagnetic spectrum of the visible range.

I am agreeing with you here. Everything is a property; there word "object" has no more meaning than properties that are for some good reason grouped together. But it is easy to imagine an opposing point of view, wherein objects viewed through direct sensory evidence or reported through the direct sensory experience of others, perhaps because direct sensory experience is the only direct means for a human to interact with the world, have a privileged status and therefore are considered "real" and all other things mere conveniences.

The dispute then between you and someone holding that point of view would not be over the existence of atoms--since you both consider there to be equal evidence for them, and your disagreement over whether they "exist" is merely verbal--but over the existence of mundane, directly observable things, since the other person believes there is special weight for the existence of those other things and you do not.

But if you look closely (and understand how it is described), the existence of an atom has a higher degree of certainty than any philosophical idea. I find it strange that one uses something with a lower degree of certainty to refute something that has a higher degree of certainty. I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

What exactly do you mean by the degree of certainty of a philosophical idea? I don't think that's something you can name. Also, the quantification of the degree of certainty of some proposition depends on the ideas you already have at the time you examine the proposition. Someone with the philosophical idea that theoretical objects are insubstantial would not evaluate the idea of atoms as having much degree of certainty at all.

It depends on your basis. Philosophy forms a basis for other things; other things are evaluated through your philosophy. You believe there is a fair degree of certainty for atoms because your philosophical basis provides for such a conclusion; someone with a different basis would not come to that conclusion and would be just as right. Comparing degrees of certainty of ideas in different philosophical formulations is like comparing the rightness of actions in different value systems.

A rational atom-denier would not deny the relative effects of atoms. He would not stand in the path of the beam (assuming he denies neutrons as well as atoms) because although he does not believe in the neutrons, he does believe in the effects.

 

[marlon]

I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

Aren't you getting tired of saying things like this ? Similar sentences can be found in over 90% of your posts. Apparentely, this approach is not working and i don't see why you even bother.

marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean here. Claiming the validity of which idea?

The idea that atoms exist cannot be used to predict the outcome of any experiment. Only the mathematics (which can be interpreted by some to mean that atoms exist) can be used to predict the outcome of experiments.

But here is where we differ. I put it to you that we ALL exist via a set of properties that defines us! When I say an atom exists, I mean that it fulfills all the properties that defines what it is. Just because these properties are described mathematically isn't a bad thing, but rather a strength, because it can be quantitatively verified, unlike "philosophical ideology". Having something agreeing quantitatively, to me, is a damn strong verification. Not many things we accept in our daily lives have THAT degree of agreement.

Thus, the "outcome" IS the definition for something to exist. The "effects" are how we define the existence of anything. You and I and the atom-denier are known to exists because of such properties. You are defined by your "effects".

A rational atom-denier would not deny the relative effects of atoms. He would not stand in the path of the beam (assuming he denies neutrons as well as atoms) because although he does not believe in the neutrons, he does believe in the effects.

Luckily, only in philosophy would something like this be taken seriously.

 

[BicycleTree]

Aren't you getting tired of saying things like this ? Similar sentences can be found in over 90% of your posts. Apparentely, this approach is not working and i don't see why you even bother.

marlon

Marlon, you are aware that I am not an atom-denier, right?


Zapper, the middle things that I said, which you did not quote, already address your argument sufficiently.

 

[marlon]

Marlon, you are aware that I am not an atom-denier, right?

Ofcourse you are not. Otherwise you would not have been able to write down your very own posts

marlon