+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 136 to 143 of 143
Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Sagan brilliance in Fun Stuff; Originally Posted by teejay Please look at this: Critical thinking: an introduction ... - Google Books There are plenty of ...
  1. #136

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,132
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,542 Times in 1,976 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Please look at this:
    Critical thinking: an introduction ... - Google Books

    There are plenty of examples where empirical evidence doesn't fit, for example in mathematical proof.
    See earlier in this thread - i've already been pointed to that and still disagree. The overuse of semantics and what can only be described as 'fluff' doesn't make it real.

    Even the 'law of causality' as that book calls it, has been questioned by physics. Look at quantum mechanics - the lines of 'cause and effect' are very blurred.
    Last edited by localzuk; 10th August 2010 at 09:25 AM.

  2. #137

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,207
    Thank Post
    286
    Thanked 777 Times in 587 Posts
    Rep Power
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    See earlier in this thread - i've already been pointed to that and still disagree. The overuse of semantics and what can only be described as 'fluff' doesn't make it real.

    Even the 'law of causality' as that book calls it, has been questioned by physics. Look at quantum mechanics - the lines of 'cause and effect' are very blurred.
    Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.

  3. #138

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,132
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,542 Times in 1,976 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.
    No, direct observation alters the outcome. Indirect observation is the way quantum theories are handled. It is still an observable outcome and therefore empirical.

    However, you would also be wrong in calling it 'quantum theory' as there are no scientific theories as yet relating to quantum mechanics. Instead, there are a large number of working hypotheses which are undergoing experimentation and refinement. It only becomes a theory once it has been proven, by observation and repeatable experimentation.

    Also, it would depend on which interpretation of quantum mechanics I subscribed to. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation does rely somewhat on subjective reasoning, but the causal interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation both rely on empirical evidence.

  4. #139

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,216
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 332 Times in 274 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.
    Oh dear.

    Observation does not alter or decide the outcome - observation simply collapses the wave state into a single possibility, so that there is an outcome. There's still a lot of investigation going on into what makes up an 'observer'. There are a lot of misunderstandings about quantum theory and the role of the observer in the experiment. It is less important than pop science trash books try to make out.

    localzuk - I have to say that the causal interpretation makes for the best science fiction, and the best headaches.

  5. #140
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,983
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 52 Times in 46 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Mark, you seem to think that you can ignore anything that disagrees with your position, change your argument whenever you're challenged on something, never answer a question, and in various other ways argue very poorly. You really can't - it doesn't make your position look good.
    That appears to be one of the most arrogant statements I've heard in a long time. Let me re-state : I am totally open to scientific information and NOTHING impinges on that.

    I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.

    I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.

  6. #141
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,983
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 52 Times in 46 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Have to agree with those saying that 'non-empirical evidence' doesn't exist. As is said in that thread - saying non-empirical evidence is akin to saying 'non-proving evidence' which completely defeats the use of the word 'evidence'!
    Then you misunderstand the reality of the use of the term in critical thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    As is also said, your term 'non-empirical evidence' would be the equivalent of a hypothesis in science - which is why I'd go with saying that 'non-empirical evidence' is more correctly labelled 'an assertion'.
    An assertion, yes. I have no issue with that.

  7. #142

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,132
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,542 Times in 1,976 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Then you misunderstand the reality of the use of the term in critical thinking.
    No, I just don't like terms being made up and misused. It'd be like me calling a telescope a 'non-photographic photographing device'. The first part cancels out the second. ie. It's just bad use of language! Hence my saying the term is more correctly an 'assetion' than 'evidence'.

  8. #143

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,216
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 332 Times in 274 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    That appears to be one of the most arrogant statements I've heard in a long time. Let me re-state : I am totally open to scientific information and NOTHING impinges on that.
    You are totally open to scientific information and theory - except when it questions religion, as you feel your beliefs are far above worldly experience, and are automatically correct through being somehow superior, outside reality, and more correct than the hundreds of other religions out there. And you accuse me of arrogance?

    I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.
    No, you've claimed that my position is false, and your only reason for it being so is because your belief should trump any scientific evaluation of evidence. I still contend that your religion, your beliefs, are no more valid than any other religion, and no more so than the theory of the great space teapot.

    I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.
    As has been said before - you don't seem to comprehend my point of view. I have no disrespect for religion, but I do for the idea that one religion is any more correct than any other belief structure based purely on assertions over evidence. Particularly when the main argument being presented for it is then that evidence is not required.

    An assertion, yes. I have no issue with that.
    An assertion is not evidence in the slightest. I can assert anything I want to.

    Incidentally it's quite obvious you don't understand what QED means.

    Quod erat demonstrandum - which is to be demonstrated - i.e. that which is definitively proven by the evidence put forwards.
    Last edited by jamesb; 16th August 2010 at 02:17 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Similar Threads

  1. [Video] New higher quailty version of "The Pale Blue Dot" By Carl Sagan
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st March 2010, 11:54 AM
  2. [Video] Carl Sagan sings through auto tune
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st October 2009, 04:03 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •