or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Do any of you believe in God?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do any of you believe in God? - Page 9

post #121 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Yes, of course I agree with that, just not the idea that the scientific method does not include disproving things. That is sort of the definition of scientific progress.
Science is about moving from one incorrect model to the next incorrect model. From a scientific basis, the older model is proven "false" and discarded, but it can't actually "prove" or "disprove" anything. Scientific progress is a better model for reality than a previous model, but it's not like math, science never proves anything. If you believe in objective truth, I would argue that everything you learn in science is 100% false and pretty much always will be, but it is our "best" model for the truth.
post #122 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
That all scientific "truth" is essentially provisional.

/Off topic

Any suggestions for this thread? I'm leaning towards the BBCalf in either shoe.

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread...09#post3710309

/Back on topic
post #123 of 321
Yup.
post #124 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
Science is about moving from one incorrect model to the next incorrect model. From a scientific basis, the older model is proven "false" and discarded, but it can't actually "prove" or "disprove" anything. Scientific progress is a better model for reality than a previous model, but it's not like math, science never proves anything. If you believe in objective truth, I would argue that everything you learn in science is 100% false and pretty much always will be, but it is our "best" model for the truth.
Dude, disprove and falsify are functionally synonomous. If a theory is a universal statement, as many scientific ones are, and a counterexample is found, it has been disproven. That, of course, Goes for univeral statements in math, logic etc. I think you are attempting to overcomplicate something. Disproof does not only exist in the strawmanned world of objective truth.
post #125 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Dude, disprove and falsify are functionally synonomous. If a theory is a universal statement, as many scientific ones are, and a counterexample is found, it has been disproven. That, of course, Goes for univeral statements in math, logic etc. I think you are attempting to overcomplicate something. Disproof does not only exist in the strawmanned world of objective truth.

I think you're confusing Scientific Theory with Mathematical Proof. They are very different things, science is a model for reality it doesn't prove/disprove or falsify anything.
post #126 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
I think you're confusing Scientific Theory with Mathematical Proof. They are very different things, science is a model for reality it doesn't prove/disprove or falsify anything.
No. I'm not.
post #127 of 321
..
post #128 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
No. I'm not.

In that case,


Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Dude, disprove and falsify are functionally synonomous. If a theory is a universal statement, as many scientific ones are, and a counterexample is found, it has been disproven. That, of course, Goes for univeral statements in math, logic etc. I think you are attempting to overcomplicate something. Disproof does not only exist in the strawmanned world of objective truth.

Is wrong. Universal statements are found in math, not science. By definition, you cannot have a universal statement in science.
post #129 of 321
Can SM disprove the idiocy I'm reading in this thread?

You have no proof it can't. /Axelrod
post #130 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post
In that case, Is wrong. Universal statements are found in math, not science. By definition, you cannot have a universal statement in science.
Jesus, what do you think the statement "water boils at 100 is?". It's shorthand for "for all x, assuming the standard qualifications about pressure, altitude etc, if x is water, x will boil at 100." Hell, since we are on about disproof and falsification, you made a universal statement in your last post. You said, more or less, universal statements exist only in math. In other words, "for all x, if x is a universal statement, then x exists in math," but your statement existed far outside of math... Now I am confused.
post #131 of 321
Ok, you don't know the difference between theory and universal statement. To say that water boils at 100 C as a theory means if you find water in the future, you would predict it to boil at 100 C, to say it as a universal statement you would have to observe all instances of water in the universe for all time, which you obviously haven't done. Theory is a "best predictor" for future observations, not a universal statement.

Science is not axiomatic, it's empirical by nature so you cannot have any universal statements from it. Are we still in disagreement?
post #132 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor View Post

Science is not axiomatic, it's empirical by nature so you cannot have any universal statements from it. Are we still in disagreement?

SM tells me, "yes."
post #133 of 321
Sorry, but I am not the one who is confused here. Go on though. Explain how the above concerning boiling is not a statement. Also, perhaps you could explain why statements cannot express theories. They both exist in science.
post #134 of 321
Memory is 20 years worth of hazy, but didn't Popper clear some of this up? While he was not the first (nor last) to write on this, didn't he handle the "problem of induction," and give answers to the question our valorious friend is asking?
post #135 of 321
Statement and universal statement aren't the same thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Do any of you believe in God?