The Present Age Passing Away

[luecy7]

Believing what random authors or people on the web tell you or what sounds nice inside your own head is not being either "objective" or "scientific".

Yes. Except, there are human sciences or social sciences where this anonymous communication can play a part. Also meditation or thought exploration is a bit of the scientific process, to find and associate the pattern. Communication helps: bouncing ideas off each other. For the external things though like the movement of planets, frequency of earthquakes, and end of age, I think you properly nail the arm-chair reader / theorist that calls the arm-chair activity 'science'. I confess for much of the science that I know (heard of), I have not necessarily repeated the experiment. For the fraction that I did: time consuming, but worth it. The lab (the world) is where the objective / scientific learning takes place, and it just doesn't compare to the books and lectures. Best laid theories sometimes come up short, and new patterns emerge from the unexpected results discovered from trying. Children may have to repeat the experiment. In summary: the mind does not work well without the lab time, and the lab time does not work well without the mind.

 

[bob x]

I am not saying that "subjective" processes like intuition etc. are valueless; but they are the opposite of "objective". AndrewX does not like the scientific process of confining oneself to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

 

[citizenzen]

AndrewX does not like the scientific process of confining oneself to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

Occasionally, however, he does provide something like "... did you know that there is a star in the constellation Pleiades which is the central system around which our system orbits?" which is easily proven as false with just a modicum of fact-checking.

But who am I to question the knowledge of our ancient masters?

 

[luecy7]

I am not saying that "subjective" processes like intuition etc. are valueless; but they are the opposite of "objective". AndrewX does not like the scientific process of confining oneself to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

I was unaware that was required for a scientific process. You think it is true? My measured results don't count unless you can cross-check them? I know what you are trying to say... it is not easy, or impossible, to cross-check most of the claims. Still, as an example, I have to respect that an astronaut that walked on the moon has evidence that I won't have.

...which is easily proven as false with just a modicum of fact-checking.

I was unaware that fact-checking could amount to a proof. Would that be with a NASA website?

 

[bob x]

I was unaware that was required for a scientific process.

That's the very definition of the "scientific" process.

You think it is true? My measured results don't count unless you can cross-check them?

Not to a scientist.

Still, as an example, I have to respect that an astronaut that walked on the moon has evidence that I won't have.

If it can't be verified, his individual say-so doesn't count for anything. They brought rocks back, so if an astronaut had the opinion that the material indeed seemed to be green cheese we can tell whether or not he was correct.

 

[Quahom1]

I was unaware that was required for a scientific process. You think it is true? My measured results don't count unless you can cross-check them? I know what you are trying to say... it is not easy, or impossible, to cross-check most of the claims. Still, as an example, I have to respect that an astronaut that walked on the moon has evidence that I won't have.

I was unaware that fact-checking could amount to a proof. Would that be with a NASA website?

Moon walk...That has been proven, 6 times. There are even parked cars on the moon with GM stickers on them (to be seen by satellite). Gee I wonder how they got there?...another hoax? lol

That, is the law of physics. (never mind the law of 9/10's...)

Who owns the moon?... lol

 

[luecy7]

That's the very definition of the "scientific" process.

Never heard of it. I think a true good scientist does not confine themselves to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

If it can't be verified, his individual say-so doesn't count for anything. They brought rocks back, so if an astronaut had the opinion that the material indeed seemed to be green cheese we can tell whether or not he was correct.

By his quotes, Einstein would disagree with you. He points out that no observation could verify his claim, but a single experiment could prove him wrong. The astronaut could barely pull anything out of his pocket without people questioning where it really came from. One person's observation and science is potentially conjecture, deceit, and even conspiracy to another person.

 

[taijasi]

AndrewX does not like the scientific process of confining oneself to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

bob x, I applaud the scientific process. If you are too lazy to undertake the required measures necessary in order to prove or disprove the results of the experiment ... why should I cut you any slack?

Frankly, I think it shows that you are the one without any respect for science. Prove me wrong by getting off your rear and setting aside your preconceived notions and a prioris long enough to GET to the conclusions that will put us on the same page.

Have I done this? Yes, sometimes, and in some cases. I have been able to prove for myself beyond a shadow of a doubt what I needed knowing up to, or at, a certain point in my life. Currently, I am shoring up this same kind of understanding, or making sure it meets my needs ...

... but I also know that action is at certain stages the ONLY way we can get things accomplished. It's how we move forward. There is NO substitute.

I'm happy to say more about viveka, Intuition/Buddhi, when I'm not about to pass out. citizenzen is at least interested in hearing how these might be defined.

Why do I get the feeling you haven't a CLUE, bob x, but that it ~ umm ~ doesn't really make any difference?

Oh, alright already, here's your benefit of the doubt from me for the day:

Do, please, share with us your take on what viveka is, and/or how it operates within the context of our other conscious faculties/facilities.

I only knew of 2 or 3 folks at IO who might also know this term and teaching; didn't realize you were one of them.

 

[citizenzen]

I think a true good scientist does not confine themselves to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

Any example that I can ... [ahem] ... cross-check?

[rant]

Another post filled with bluster and put-downs, yet not one shred of evidence that you claim to throughly have investigated.

Sorry Andrew, bullying people might have worked for you in grade school, but in forums I think you'll find it far less effective.

How about sharing some of the vast amount of evidence you claim to possess?

I double-dog dare you.

 

[Quahom1]

Never heard of it. I think a true good scientist does not confine themselves to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

By his quotes, Einstein would disagree with you. He points out that no observation could verify his claim, but a single experiment could prove him wrong. The astronaut could barely pull anything out of his pocket without people questioning where it really came from. One person's observation and science is potentially conjecture, deceit, and even conspiracy to another person.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (courtesy of Wiki)

To be tested, means others can do the same thing and get similar results, rendering a study as "fact" - not conjecture, or speculation. That is why for example "Criminal Justice" is an "Art", where as "Forensics" is a science.

The "expression" can not proceed without the "facts" to back it.

All else is whimsy and folly.

 

[citizenzen]

All else is whimsy and folly.

Or faith.

And there's nothing wrong with faith.

It's just helps to be able to distinguish between it and science.

 

[Quahom1]

Or faith.

And there's nothing wrong with faith.

It's just helps to be able to distinguish between it and science.

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of faith.

Unlike whimsy or folly, faith is the belief in things as yet unseen (though they are in fact there), where as whimsy or folly is simply a fantasy not expected to come true.

That is the difference...

with all due respect.

Q

 

[citizenzen]

The "expression" can not proceed without the "facts" to back it.

All else is whimsy and folly.

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of faith.

Unlike whimsy or folly, faith is the belief in things as yet unseen (though they are in fact there)

In all three cases (whimsy, folly, and faith) there are no "facts" that can be produced to "back it".

That is why it's called "faith".

From dictionary.com ...

faith - belief that is not based on proof.​

What facts do you or anyone else have that proves these "things as yet unseen" are "in fact there"?

Again, there is nothing wrong with faith. I am not trying to say that it doesn't have merit. I am simply distinguishing it from that which is evidence-based, measurable, testable and verifiable.

 

[Quahom1]

In all three cases (whimsy, folly, and faith) there are no "facts" that can be produced to "back it".

That is why it's called "faith".

From dictionary.com ...

faith - belief that is not based on proof.
​

What facts do you or anyone else have that proves these "things as yet unseen" are "in fact there"?

Again, there is nothing wrong with faith. I am not trying to say that it doesn't have merit. I am simply distinguishing it from that which is evidence-based, measurable, testable and verifiable.

No, you don't get it (I am sorry for that).

I had faith that my son would do well in wrestling...never expected him to sit third in the state (having wrestled only 3 months), against those who wrestled for 15 years...

I had faith in my son, but what he did exceded my expectations, and also my expectancy...

Now do you understand?

 

[citizenzen]

Now do you understand?

I understand that you had faith (high hopes) and it turned out in that case that your hopes were fulfilled.

But what does that have to do with proof?

Sometimes our hopes and dreams are fulfilled, sometimes they are not.

Had your hopes not been fulfilled ... if your son had not done well ... would that have disproved faith?

 

[Quahom1]

I understand that you had faith (high hopes) and it turned out in that case that your hopes were fulfilled.

But what that has to do with proof, I haven't the slightest idea.

Sometimes our hopes and dreams are fulfilled, sometimes they are not.

Had your hopes not been fulfilled ... if your son had not done well ... would that have disproved faith?

He fulfilled my expectations, and gave wind to my expectancy (hope). That is PROOF. He did it. His possible failure is not the issue here, since we are ultimately talking about God/Christ - Jesus...

Try another tract...

 

[citizenzen]

Try another tract...

No. I think this one needs to be explored more fully.

The discussion earlier concerned scientific evidence.

From wikipedia ...

Scientific evidence

Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry.​

What scientific theory or hypothesis was put to the test by your son fulfilling your hopes?

Perhaps you could formulate one now and think of some ways to experiment and measure results which would support or counter your theory.

If you'd like to claim that faith is fact, then let's put it to the test.

 

[bob x]

Never heard of it.

A sad comment on the educational system.

I think a true good scientist does not confine themselves to observations that can be cross-checked by others.

Then you think wrongly.

By his quotes, Einstein would disagree with you. He points out that no observation could verify his claim, but a single experiment could prove him wrong.

You are not understanding what he is saying. Theories are generalizations, and a generalization can never be shown to work always without an infinite amount of observation; but a single observation can show that it is not always true. As Popper puts it, "Nature can whisper yes, yes, yes, but nature's NO! is an undeniable shout" (I am quoting from memory so I don't have it verbatim). But when a theory that has worked well to explain a large range of observations is found to fail in one or more counterexamples, a new and improved theory incorporating these cases must of course still work for all the cases previously understood. Einstein's theory superseded Newton's, but Newton is still what we use to calculate satellite trajectories (Einstein's corrections would only tweak the digits way down past the decimal point); there was no way that if Newton failed on something, astronomers were going to go back to Ptolemy's epicycles or something else that we had gotten way past.

 

[luecy7]

A sad comment on the educational system.

I feel for those who blame a religion for the misguided adherents who claim to follow it; however, the idea that people merely learn their behavior from the taught religion is the first mistake. The misguided adherents were those who bent the religion to include themselves, without interest towards their own effort to be good and adaptive in the world outside. Your viewpoint of science appears to follow suit, bending the process to suit yourself, bobx.

Then you think wrongly.

So you think it is wrong for people to think differently than you?

You are not understanding what he is saying. Theories are generalizations, and a generalization can never be shown to work always without an infinite amount of observation; but a single observation can show that it is not always true. As Popper puts it, "Nature can whisper yes, yes, yes, but nature's NO! is an undeniable shout" (I am quoting from memory so I don't have it verbatim). But when a theory that has worked well to explain a large range of observations is found to fail in one or more counterexamples, a new and improved theory incorporating these cases must of course still work for all the cases previously understood. Einstein's theory superseded Newton's, but Newton is still what we use to calculate satellite trajectories (Einstein's corrections would only tweak the digits way down past the decimal point); there was no way that if Newton failed on something, astronomers were going to go back to Ptolemy's epicycles or something else that we had gotten way past.

Yes, and Einstein, like Newton, were both theoretical and empirical scientists. Does the word 'hypothesis' mean anything in your version of a scientific process, bobx?

I will assert a hypothesis. One person necessarily has a different objective viewpoint and interaction point than another person, and should not be encumbered to think they can't explore merely because those around them can't or won't see where they look, or interact the same. If my assertion is true, then your so called 'scientific process' is looking rather silly and selfish, bobx. It sounds like a feeble attempt to bring others to your armchair level. I accept that an astronaut is an objective scientist, and that I don't have the means to go there myself. Similarly for people in all walks of life. I submit that being an objective scientist sometimes means straying to places where others not only won't go, but often can't for one reason or another.

 

[bob x]

So you think it is wrong for people to think differently than you?

No, I am asserting that there is one particular style of thought to which words like "objective" and "scientific" apply. I said a couple posts back that I am not denying that "subjective" ways of thinking are valueless; but they are different, and AndrewX simply does not even know what the words "objective" and "scientific" MEAN.

One person necessarily has a different objective viewpoint and interaction point than another person

NO NO NO. One person has a different SUBJECTIVE viewpoint than another; "objective" means the opposite.

I accept that an astronaut is an objective scientist, and that I don't have the means to go there myself. Similarly for people in all walks of life.

An astronaut may or may not be a "scientist"; the earliest astronauts were more in the nature of athletes, highly trained physically but not necessarily well schooled.