Try measuring something without believing it exists and see how far you get. Belief is a binary so it’s not like you can neither believe nor disbelieve in the thing you’re measuring. Even besides that, science is very much about belief, because the scientific method implies that every new finding can be falsifiable. The theory of relativity is a very good example of that phenomenon.
Try measuring something without believing it exists and see how far you get.
Ok.
:reads his horoscope, takes an IQ test, speaks to a reiki healer, analysis of the fungi shei of his bedroom, using a dowsing rod, and gets his thetan level checked.
What do I win?
Belief is a binary so it’s not like you can neither believe nor disbelieve in the thing you’re measuring.
:reads his horoscope, takes an IQ test, speaks to a reiki healer, analysis of the fungi shei of his bedroom, using a dowsing rod, and gets his thetan level checked.
You’re equivocating two different gestalts of “existence” there. You know that there are things known as horoscopes, IQ, reiki, etc etc, and that you can measure them, you just don’t believe that it has any real effect. The existence I’m talking about is more literal: it isn’t there. I don’t think you’re even really trying to understand what I mean? This smacks of an “I fucking love science” facebook page-level of understanding. To bring it back: the implements you use to measure the non-phenomenal exist themselves in the same non-phenomenal capacity, because they’re just objects in that non-phenomenal world, so you’re relying on feedback from that world in order to prove that that world exists, so it’s more akin to seeing a drawing of a dragon and concluding that the dragon exists because you can see it. René Descartes’s famous quote “I think, therefore I am” is about how the only truly knowable thing is that your own mind exists, because any other experience of the outside world could be a trick of the mind. I’m certainly not talking about how horoscopes “don’t exist”.
Assertion please prove this.
You can’t rightly ask someone to prove that something doesn’t exist and I don’t think it helps the conversation to worry about it.
Absolute nonsense. That’s like saying that you lose your voice in order to fill out a health insurance card as you wait for treatment. Don’t put des hoarse before des carte.
Well, drole response I suppose, but there’s no way of applying the scientific method without first believing in the non-phenomenal world, so the scientific method can’t act as the horse there.
Yeah, someone arguing that there’s no objective reality WOULD claim that the best method to objectively prove reality depends on already believing in objective reality.
I didn’t say anything about it being the best method, and just that something helps my case doesn’t make my logic circular. You could say that it’d be circular to say “the scientific method relies on the real world existing, and the real world existing relies on the scientific method”, but that’s exactly what I’m saying is not the case; in fact, my whole point is that you can’t use the scientific method to prove that the real world exists exactly for that reason. I literally typed “not the other way around”. The results of the measurements you make of the non-phenomenal world exist themselves in the non-phenomenal world so they can’t be proof that that world exists. I don’t know how to put it in simpler terms!
It never goes anywhere with them. They keep presenting useless skepticism until finally you admit that in theory you could be brain in a jar. Then they “win” and get to claim God.
I assume you are like me. I take the evidence and see where it goes. What they do is they throw away the evidence so they can get the result that they want.
The scientific method is a consequence of believing the world around you to be emprically provably real, not the other way around.
You don’t have to believe in bullets to get shot in the leg.
Science doesn’t involve beliefs. It involves measurement. There is reason why no one likes presups, so maybe stop being one
Try measuring something without believing it exists and see how far you get. Belief is a binary so it’s not like you can neither believe nor disbelieve in the thing you’re measuring. Even besides that, science is very much about belief, because the scientific method implies that every new finding can be falsifiable. The theory of relativity is a very good example of that phenomenon.
Ok.
:reads his horoscope, takes an IQ test, speaks to a reiki healer, analysis of the fungi shei of his bedroom, using a dowsing rod, and gets his thetan level checked.
What do I win?
Assertion please prove this.
You’re equivocating two different gestalts of “existence” there. You know that there are things known as horoscopes, IQ, reiki, etc etc, and that you can measure them, you just don’t believe that it has any real effect. The existence I’m talking about is more literal: it isn’t there. I don’t think you’re even really trying to understand what I mean? This smacks of an “I fucking love science” facebook page-level of understanding. To bring it back: the implements you use to measure the non-phenomenal exist themselves in the same non-phenomenal capacity, because they’re just objects in that non-phenomenal world, so you’re relying on feedback from that world in order to prove that that world exists, so it’s more akin to seeing a drawing of a dragon and concluding that the dragon exists because you can see it. René Descartes’s famous quote “I think, therefore I am” is about how the only truly knowable thing is that your own mind exists, because any other experience of the outside world could be a trick of the mind. I’m certainly not talking about how horoscopes “don’t exist”.
You can’t rightly ask someone to prove that something doesn’t exist and I don’t think it helps the conversation to worry about it.
Absolute nonsense. That’s like saying that you lose your voice in order to fill out a health insurance card as you wait for treatment. Don’t put des hoarse before des carte.
Well, drole response I suppose, but there’s no way of applying the scientific method without first believing in the non-phenomenal world, so the scientific method can’t act as the horse there.
Yeah, someone arguing that there’s no objective reality WOULD claim that the best method to objectively prove reality depends on already believing in objective reality.
I’ve seen coins less circular than your logic.
I didn’t say anything about it being the best method, and just that something helps my case doesn’t make my logic circular. You could say that it’d be circular to say “the scientific method relies on the real world existing, and the real world existing relies on the scientific method”, but that’s exactly what I’m saying is not the case; in fact, my whole point is that you can’t use the scientific method to prove that the real world exists exactly for that reason. I literally typed “not the other way around”. The results of the measurements you make of the non-phenomenal world exist themselves in the non-phenomenal world so they can’t be proof that that world exists. I don’t know how to put it in simpler terms!
It never goes anywhere with them. They keep presenting useless skepticism until finally you admit that in theory you could be brain in a jar. Then they “win” and get to claim God.
I assume you are like me. I take the evidence and see where it goes. What they do is they throw away the evidence so they can get the result that they want.
These things break my theory
Me: my theory must be wrong.
Them: you can’t really know anything.
Prove to me the spiritual world exists.
Not relevant to what they said. Is your sensory input actually telling you what you think was said?
Yes my senses match with the real world pretty well. If I need greater accuracy I just use equipment.
Not really relevant!
I think it is. If you are going to make claims about the spiritual world you should demonstrate existence first.
I’m not talking about the spiritual world and I don’t even really know what you mean by it.