Experiment and Theory vs. Reality

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...maybe in accordance with physics 150 years ago...you should really try to keep up, chum.

If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent.

Are you saying that new theories and better evidence cannot supplant old theories and less-compelling evidence?

 

[protonman]

Answer the question

If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today?

.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Answer the question .

It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why.

Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.

If your ideas that we thought to be correct 150 years ago have been shown to be incorrect why should we give any credence to the present ideas. In order to understand my argument shift the same logic back 150 years to when they thought they were correct regarding wave (of course this is all according to you).

The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on. The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.

I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amount of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this. How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.

In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Experimental evidence is not conclusive. It can only eliminate a theory, not establish it. Why? Because if an experiment establishes something it only establishes it in the particular situations the experiment was done in.

I agree that experimental evidence does not constitute absolute proof.

Pervasive establishments are based on reason. If you can establish something based on a reason then you can establish something in all cases.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of "reason" in science, as is made abundantly clear by your reference to mathematics in the next segment (I'll get to that shortly). "Proofs" in the absolute sense are carried out via deductive logic. However, deduction provides us with no method to determine the truth values of statements about concrete objects (such as particles and fields). To establish the truth value of the statements in the proof, we must rely on induction, whose basis is in observational evidence.

Not only is observation the way theories are established, it is the only way they can be established.

For example, to find the extrema of a function you could check all points. The problem here is that there are infinite cases. If you check countless cases you still have countless more to check. Consider a simple parabola that has only one minimum at zero. You check every case except zero and based on all these tests conclude there is no zero. Or you could use reason. Since the point where the tanget is zero must be an extrema all we need to do is find this point. This is established pervasively. We did not need to look at every case but through logic and reason deduced that there is a relationship between extrema and the tanget line.

This is completely inapplicable.

The use of deduction to establish absolute truths can only be done within formal systems that are known a priori, such as logic or mathematics. But the natural world is not known that way; it is known a posteriori, which means that we have no choice but to rely on observation to establish theories.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.

Lose the attitude. You are the one making fundamental errors here, and you would be well advised to humble yourself.

The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on.

Nonsense. What it indicates is that we have an ever-improving understanding of what is going on. Science is not a destination, it is a journey. Physics will never be complete, because we can never be sure that we have the correct laws of nature. The best we can do is form a series of "conjectures and refutations", as Popper put it.

The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.

More nonsense. The construction of a "time independent" theory would requre a complete knowledge of both the current state of the universe as well as the dynamics governing its time evolution. As I said, the universe is known a posteriori, but you are making these ridiculous statements as if it were known a priori. There is no reason to accept your point of view, and indeed every reason to reject it.

History may be littered with falsified theories obtained by the methods most of us here espouse, but it is even more littered with the falsified theories of those who espouse introspective reasoning as the basis of scientific research. You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amount of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this.

LOL

How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.

It is not stupid at all, if one adopts the correct view that the universe is not known a priori. It only looks stupid from your backwards view of the world.

Conversely, your ideas look stupid from my view of the world. Rather than sling mud around, how about trying to see it from the other point of view?

In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.

Again: You have it completely backwards. To adopt the view that the universe is known a posteriori is to be decidedly un-dogmatic. How in the world could you think otherwise? Since when does a dogmatist admit that he is wrong and correct himself, when the need arises?

edit: typo

 

[protonman]

Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself. What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.

For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.

What you people are doing today can not be qualified even as knowledge. To understand this you need to understand what it means to know something. What a vase is has not changed in 10,000 years. If you know something you understand it as it exists. If the view today will be replaced (as you have said) in the future then what you have now does not even qualify as knowledge. In fact, according to your view science will never achieve knowledge of anything in the sense of the definition of knowledge.

What you need to do is study views other than western science. I am saying this with all seriousness. Your exposure to different views is extremely limited and this harms your ability to understand. Modern science is not the sole source of truth. I have the rare experience of being on boths sides. I thought just the way you do. Certainty is a reality. It is only a matter of finding a system of thought that understands this and studying their tenets.

 

[protonman]

OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by protonman
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

Yes.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes.

Which one?

 

[protonman]

You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic. I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.

 

[FZ+]

Which one?

Neither.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you accept any views?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Neither.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny. A summary.

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Do you accept any views?

Yes. But going on the assumption that you don't accept them I haven't brought them up. This is what true scholars do. You are no different than the Christians who quote the bible. You are referring to experiments that I don't accept. Your method of inquiry I don't accept. In fact I have raised an objection to it here at least twice and it has been ignored both times.

What do I mean by no different than Christians? Because you are trying to use as evidence for your argument views that I don't accept. I have been arguing purely on empirical and logical grounds. My only appeal to authority is the conventional reality that all people agree on. For example, the existence of matter. That fact that we can drink out of a cup. That fact that we do not fly off Earth due to gravity. These are things we can all relate to and that is all I have used in my arguments. Common experience and from that reasoning.

Why have I done this? Because I understand that if an argument is based on both sides quoting their root sources the discussion will go nowhere. It will degenerate into what resembles fundamentalist thinking if not become it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, if you're going to dismiss others' posts because you don't accept the methods / views upon which those posts are based, it's only fair game that you present views and methods which you do accept.

On purely logical grounds, the stance you are taking is only useful for defending your own worldview. If the goal of your post was to allow to test your beliefs against the fire, then so be it...

However, you appear to be attempting to debunk modern scientific thought and/or enlightening the rest of us. I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.


Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of being like a Christian quoting the Bible, because I have accused others of the exact same thing multiple times in the past! We've had a few crackpots come through here (such as LogicalAtheist) who were the prototypical example of the scientific analog of a closed-minded fundamental zealot.

And I have asked in the past questions along the line "How would you convince someone who doesn't already believe you?" It would normally be nifty to see that someone appear on the forum, but the attitude you brought certainly didn't inspire people to try and answer my question.


For the record, most (all?) of the regulars here don't believe any of the answers given by science are "absolute truth".

 

[protonman]

I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.

If you don't accept logic then I guess we have no common foundation. My previous post explains my methods. I raised a question to those of you who accept science. No one has even touch it. Here I will repeat it.

Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid. If the only means of establishing anything is the scientific view then you must use this method to determine if perception is valid or not. If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world. If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.

I dare anyone to get the guts to even touch this one.

 

[Hurkyl]

*poke*


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic!

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
*poke*


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic!

First of all your arguments are terrible and I am not going to waste my time on such trivial matters. I will address the first one though.

Memory is not a perception. It is based on conceptual thought which can not have a physical object as its appearing object. Physical objects can only appear to non-conceptual minds.

I am not sure what kind of drugs you take but if you assume something is true in order to test if it is true you are way off.

 

[Nereid]

protonman: First of all your arguments are terrible *SNIP

Why are the arguments 'terrible'?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
Why are the arguments 'terrible'?

I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you [sic] wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your [sic] first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed.

Thank you for the reply.

Could I ask that you please distinguish between the persons posting? I am Nereid*; I am not Hurkyl.

*"(Class. Myth.) A sea nymph, one of the daughters of Nereus, who were attendants upon Neptune"

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself.

I am discussing "logic itself", you numbskull. You have completely failed to address my argument. Tell me, protonboy, where in deductive logic is there a mechanical decision procedure to determine the truth value of statements, without using induction? Answer that, and I will concede. Come on, I double dare you.

What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.

"pervasive logic"?

Quit making stuff up.

For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.

"perfect reason"?

Quit making stuff up.

Protonboy, before you post any more nonsense, why don't you address what has been said? You have two enormous holes in your case:

1. The truth values of statements cannot be determined without induction (and therefore they cannot be determined without experimentation).

2. The universe is not known a priori.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

"the bomb?"

You are funny, I'll give you that.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
Tom: You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

protonboy: This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic.

1. I already have made my case based on logic. You ignored it.

2. Kant's case is also based on logic.

3. Since when is it a bad thing to recommend that someone needs to learn something (as you clearly do!)?

I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.

Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds when you say that you do not accept a point of view, without ever having read the argument in support of it?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid.

How do you know logic is valid? I dare you to have the guts to answer that one.

If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world.

The validity of perception is established by the fact that we all agree on events that happen in the universe. Any two people can perform the same experiment. When they get the same result, we call that "objectively verifiable". When many such people get the same result, we have even more confidence in the result.

In science, "objectivity" means "corroboration by many subjects".

You may not like it, but it is all we have.

If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.

So, you have discovered that scientists use base assumptions because they don't know everything. Congratulations. I'll notify the Nobel committee right away.

 

[protonman]

1. The truth values of statements cannot be determined without induction (and therefore they cannot be determined without experimentation).

2. The universe is not known a priori. [/B]

First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.

Second according to philosophypages.com we have the following:In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. What I am talking about is certainty which would imply deductive logic.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
"the bomb?"

You are funny, I'll give you that.

Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.

Yes, it is true. You are a jerk.

Second according to philosophypages.com we have the following:In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. What I am talking about is certainty which would imply deductive logic.

I don't need the little lesson from philosophypages.com. I teach courses in this subject. Also, you have completely failed[/color] to address my argument, which states that deduction cannot determine the truth value of a statement.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
1. I already have made my case based on logic. You ignored it.

2. Kant's case is also based on logic.

3. Since when is it a bad thing to recommend that someone needs to learn something (as you clearly do!)?



Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds when you say that you do not accept a point of view, without ever having read the argument in support of it?

How do you know I haven't. I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you. I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.

Right. What that means is that those concepts are ill-suited to describe real, physical light and that new concepts must be formulated.

 

[protonman]

I don't need the little lesson from philosophypages.com. I teach courses in this subject. Also, you have completely failed[/color] to address my argument, which states that deduction cannot determine the truth value of a statement. [/B]

I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong. What the hell does truth value mean anyway?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
How do you know I haven't.

I know you have not studied these things from the blatant ignorance exhibited in your posts.

I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you.

It isn't showing.

By the way, the reference to Kant is a work in philosophy, not physics.

I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.

Again: It isn't showing.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong.

If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. You have done nothing other than assert it.

What the hell does truth value mean anyway?

Why don't you look it up at philosophypages.com, protonboy?

 

[quantumdude]

Here is my full argument against pure reason as a scientific method. I am copying it directly from the thread Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System

Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.

From FZ's topic The limits of reason

First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).


All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply[/color] its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.[/color]

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality.[/color] In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Continuing:

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support[/color] to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support[/color] to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Here is my full argument against pure reason as a scientific method. I am copying it directly from the thread Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System

Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.

From FZ's topic The limits of reason

First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).


All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply[/color] its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.[/color]

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality.[/color] In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Continuing:

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support[/color] to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support[/color] to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it. There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world. In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding. The techniques and findings of Buddhist meditators have been tested and tested over and over again for thousands of years. If you study the texts you will see that exactl as the experience is described it can be realized. This is real science. This is real experiment. In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent. That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.

In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception. This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it.

Prove it. You can start by actually addressing my argument for a change.

There is so much more existent objects than just the physical.

Prove it.

Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it.

Prove it (using logic, please).

Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.

No protonboy, they were investigating their own minds. To "investigate the world" implies going out and observing the world. Medidation and introspection won't cut it.

In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding.

OK, but we were talking about logic here, remember? You're changing the subject.

This is real science. This is real experiment.

No, real science and real experiments are about observing the world without, not the world within.

In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.

LOL, I thought you said that theories cannot be confirmed experimentally. Changin' yer tune, protonboy?

That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.

Scientific theories enjoy the same status. In addition to that, they make precise quantitative predictions about the observable world, which no amount of pure introspection can do.

In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.

Sure I do. I further understand that those limts are the reason we build precise instruments that are not subject to the same problems.

This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

Talk about hypocritical. When I referred you to Kant, you pointed it out as an example of people not being able to think for themselves (despite the fact that I had an argument of my own posted--which you ignored). I then pasted a more detailed argument in this thread, which you also ignored. Now, here you are, telling me to go and study something and you aren't even making a coherent case for it!

Come on, protonboy, don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?

 

[protonman]

quote:Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it.

You only examine the physical world.

There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Prove it.

Mind.

Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Prove it (using logic, please).

They only investigate the physical world.

Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.

No protonboy, they were investigating their own minds. To "investigate the world" implies going out and observing the world. Medidation and introspection won't cut it.

Well you don't really know much about Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive explanations of the physical world as indicated below in my statement about their idea of atoms originating with the Hindus. In addition, modern science does not understand the relation between the mind and the external world

This is real science. This is real experiment.

No, real science and real experiments are about observing the world without, not the world within.

Again I call attention to your lack of understanding of the relation between the mind and external reality. What you believe in is an objective existence of an external reality which is logically impossible.

In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.

LOL, I thought you said that theories cannot be confirmed experimentally. Changin' yer tune, protonboy?

No I am not changing my tune. What I am saying is that your methods of experiment can not be confirmed because you do not support them with pervasive logic. If you have a perfect reason backing your experience you can establish it as true.

In addition, I didn't say they were confirmed in all cases. I simply said they were confirmed. That is, confirmed for the individual. But in combination with perfect reasoning they are established.

That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.

Scientific theories enjoy the same status. In addition to that, they make precise quantitative predictions about the observable world, which no amount of pure introspection can do.

Scientific theories do not enjoy the same status. They are continually being replaced every 50-100 years by a so called better theory. You can't explain why the speed of light is measured the same in all inertial reference frames. You can't explain why light is both a particle and a wave. This is total BS.

In addition, the mind, if trained enough, can understand anything. Therefore, it can know the number of atoms in a handful of sand. You see real wisdom does not rely on machines.

In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.

Sure I do. I further understand that those limts are the reason we build precise instruments that are not subject to the same problems.

Well let me inform your of something. If you are using a machine to detect particles and looking at the traces in a bubble chamber you are not seeing the particles directly. Therefore, you are using reasoning to establish your theories.

This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

Talk about hypocritical. When I referred you to Kant, you pointed it out as an example of people not being able to think for themselves (despite the fact that I had an argument of my own posted--which you ignored). I then pasted a more detailed argument in this thread, which you also ignored. Now, here you are, telling me to go and study something and you aren't even making a coherent case for it!

My case is that you don't even understand what I am talking about.

Come on, protonboy, don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove it.

You seem to have a lot of bulit up anger.

 

[Janitor]

Protonman,

Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.

(Al Gore "originated" the Internet, he says, and I've been thinking he may have some Buddhist leanings, so I'll give you folks some credit there. )

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.

Not at all. Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing. Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering? Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?

 

[Janitor]

"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?

 

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by protonman ...

I say you're wrong.

 

[FZ+]

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.

Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?

What are you implying?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.

Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.

But your knowledge is nothing without them.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?

This is only a very gross form of suffering.

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?

Because they realized it is more important to work on inner development.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?

Because inference is more valid than perception.