|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2012 : 11:17:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Trick question, therefor God?
|
I think you are reading into my question something that is not there. I was not trying to prove God exists. I was only trying to see if you could prove your statement to be true by using the criteria for truth stated in it. Maybe it can, I don't really know for sure. It was a question not a statement.
If you think it is an unfair or trick question then can you explain to me why it is?
|
Okay, I'll accept your statement.
I believe my original statement . . .Originally posted by HalfMooner
I submit that nothing is true if it cannot be verified by outside observation or experiment. |
. . . is verified everyday by the efficacy of the scientific method in dealing with reality. No other approach comes close, or ever has. Aside from observation of this overwhelming phenomenon, I have no (and am intellectually incapable of!) formal philosophical arguments of the epistemological kind. To me, that which works beats that which fails. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/22/2012 11:20:13 |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 11:28:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Convinced
Trick question, therefor God?
|
I think you are reading into my question something that is not there. I was not trying to prove God exists. I was only trying to see if you could prove your statement to be true by using the criteria for truth stated in it. Maybe it can, I don't really know for sure. It was a question not a statement.
If you think it is an unfair or trick question then can you explain to me why it is?
|
Okay, I'll accept your statement.
I believe my original statement . . .Originally posted by HalfMooner
I submit that nothing is true if it cannot be verified by outside observation or experiment. |
. . . is verified everyday by the efficacy of the scientific method in dealing with reality. No other approach comes close, or ever has. Aside from observation of this overwhelming phenomenon, I have no (and am intellectually incapable of!) formal philosophical arguments of the epistemological kind. To me, that which works beats that which fails.
|
I guess where I disagree with your statement is that I think that all truth does not fit into your definition. I do agree that if something can be verified by outside observation or experiment, then it is true. However, I do not think that everything that is true can be verified by outside observation or experiment. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 11:38:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
[I guess where I disagree with your statement is that I think that all truth does not fit into your definition. I do agree that if something can be verified by outside observation or experiment, then it is true. However, I do not think that everything that is true can be verified by outside observation or experiment.
|
Do you have examples of truths that are not subject, at least in principle, to materialistic examination? Not just ideas, but truths?
Because one problem with such a reputed truth is that it were somehow outside of physical reality, would be unfalsifiable. Another is that it would likely be meaningless, a null statement cloaked in fancy words. But I might well be wrong. So please let us consider your specific examples. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 12:15:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Convinced
[I guess where I disagree with your statement is that I think that all truth does not fit into your definition. I do agree that if something can be verified by outside observation or experiment, then it is true. However, I do not think that everything that is true can be verified by outside observation or experiment.
|
Do you have examples of truths that are not subject, at least in principle, to materialistic examination? Not just ideas, but truths?
Because one problem with such a reputed truth is that it were somehow outside of physical reality, would be unfalsifiable. Another is that it would likely be meaningless, a null statement cloaked in fancy words. But I might well be wrong. So please let us consider your specific examples.
|
This may be a change in my original thinking but 2000 years ago radioactive decay could not be verified by observation or experimentation as it can be today, but radioactive decay was true then as it is now. I think God falls into this catagory as well.
But to the question that is there truths that can never be verified by observation or experimentation seems to me to be a question that can never be answered becasue we can never know if they are true or not. But I don't think that makes them necessarily untrue or worthless. Just unprovable.
What do you think of these examples: beauty, ethics, logic, love and science? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 12:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
This may be a change in my original thinking but 2000 years ago radioactive decay could not be verified by observation or experimentation as it can be today, but radioactive decay was true then as it is now. |
No, radioactivity was always in principle verifiable. Science didn't have all the answers in the past, and likely won't in the future. Think of science as being the worst way to learn about the universe (except for all the others).| think God falls into this catagory as well. |
God is a form of radioactivity?But to the question that is there truths that can never be verified by observation or experimentation seems to me to be a question that can never be answered becasue we can never know if they are true or not. But I don't think that makes them necessarily untrue or worthless. Just unprovable.
What do you think of these examples: beauty, ethics, logic, love and science? |
I think we need much more specific than a list major categories here. We need to collectively chew upon at least one statement of "truth" that defies materialistic scientific investigation. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/22/2012 12:29:25 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:17:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
No, radioactivity was always in principle verifiable. Science didn't have all the answers in the past, and likely won't in the future. |
True, but at one time it was not verifiable. My point is that something does not have to be verified to be true.
| Think of science as being the worst way to learn about the universe (except for all the others). |
I like this.
| God is a form of radioactivity? |
No. I was relating this statement to my idea about radioactivity. That God is not verifiable by observation or experimentation to everybody today but will be observable to everybody in their future.
| I think we need much more specific than a list major categories here. We need to collectively chew upon at least one statement of "truth" that defies materialistic scientific investigation. |
Ok. How about this painting:
http://www.canvaz.com/gallery/214.htm
This painting is beautiful.
Can we verify by observation or experimentation that my above statement is true?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I do agree that if something can be verified by outside observation or experiment, then it is true. |
(emphasis above mind)
Personally, I'd rather say "most likely true" or "a very close approximation to truth".
Remember, it may not be possible to find out the absolute Truth(tm).
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:31:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Convinced
I do agree that if something can be verified by outside observation or experiment, then it is true. |
(emphasis above mind)
Personally, I'd rather say "most likely true" or "a very close approximation to truth".
Remember, it may not be possible to find out the absolute Truth(tm).
|
I agree for some things but most things we can know the absolute truth. Such as it is absolutly true I registered on SFN today. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Convinced
This may be a change in my original thinking but 2000 years ago radioactive decay could not be verified by observation or experimentation as it can be today, but radioactive decay was true then as it is now. |
No, radioactivity was always in principle verifiable. |
Yeah, the difference between "in principle" and "practicality" is a tough one, sometimes. But 2,000 years ago the very idea of radioactivity didn't exist. I doubt anyone could have dreamed up a way to test it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been, given the correct background knowledge.
Given what we know right now, the existence of other universes is probably in principle unverifiable, but it's because we know of no way for information to be transferred between two universes.
Of course, the Christian god is unverifiable in principle because of how god is defined by humans, not because we don't know how to test for god's existence. Humans have decided that failed tests for god means that god is hiding (proof denies faith and all that), not that god doesn't exist.
And one of these is vastly more important than the other. If other universes exist but are unreachable, it doesn't make much of a difference in anyone's life. But if god exists, it means a great deal with regard to people's immortal souls.
The fact that the big question is made unanswerable by apologists and zealots kinda rankles.Originally posted by Convinced
What do you think of these examples: beauty, ethics, logic, love and science? |
I think they're all verifiable in the exact same way you said that religion is verifiable. And the mere existence of concepts is verifiable simply by talking about them, which is an act of observation. By simply mentioning the concept of a donut-shaped watermelon, you've already thought of one, thus observing that the concept exists.
To verify that instances of concepts exist, one merely needs to query those things capable of perceiving them: people. "Is this beautiful?" "Do you love him?" "Is that ethical?" Those are example questions to see whether anyone actually finds that those concepts have some relation to reality. Sociologists do that sort of thing all the time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 13:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Such as it is absolutly true I registered on SFN today. |
Is it? What if you're just having a fever dream? Or if you're just a human battery plugged into the Matrix? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 14:02:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Such as it is absolutly true I registered on SFN today. |
Is it? What if you're just having a fever dream? Or if you're just a human battery plugged into the Matrix?
|
Then truth is ultimately unknowable and this discussion is irrelevant. But by Halfmooners definition:
| I submit that nothing is true if it cannot be verified by outside observation or experiment. Also, nothing is true that is not subject to falsifiability. |
it is observable that I registered on SFN today so it is true.
Although I am going on the assumption that the opposite of Halfmooner's statement is true. I wonder if he would agree that:
| If something is verified by outside observation or experiment and is falsifiable then it is true. |
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 16:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Then truth is ultimately unknowable and this discussion is irrelevant. |
Yes, you first need a justification for rejecting solipsism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 16:39:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I agree for some things but most things we can know the absolute truth. Such as it is absolutly true I registered on SFN today.
|
That could possibly be false, from Halfmooner's point of view since today may already be friday for him. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 19:17:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I submit that nothing is true if it cannot be verified by outside observation or experiment. |
What about deductive things -- math? Statements can be true within a logical system independent of the physical world. |
But doesn't math work in dealing with the physical world, thus verifying the math?
|
No, some abstract concepts in math have been developed independent of any purpose in the physical world. Some of these came to be used for things and some haven't.
Deciding what axioms to build our systems from is very much an empirical thing sometimes, but an axiom can be whatever one chooses, and truth within a system built from arbitrary axioms is independent of anything outside the system entirely. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2012 : 23:51:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
No, some abstract concepts in math have been developed independent of any purpose in the physical world. Some of these came to be used for things and some haven't.
Deciding what axioms to build our systems from is very much an empirical thing sometimes, but an axiom can be whatever one chooses, and truth within a system built from arbitrary axioms is independent of anything outside the system entirely. |
One could, like Tolkien, construct an internally consistent magical world with no real crossover to the physical universe. The result may be a wonderful work of fiction, but it's not going to be referred to by historians as a "primary source." Theoretical physicists have constructed various "string theory" hypotheses, with varying degrees of self-consistency. But unless and until they become falsifiable in the real world, they aren't yet science, and can't become real theories.
So basically, I question the validity and relevance in the physical world of concepts that are based upon self-contained, often circular, reasoning. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Christianity, immaterialism, and falsifiability
