UK Census 2011

[worm]

while it has to be interpreted and there's always the possibility of error, you're basing your distrust on the ignorance of those past times.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No I'm not. I'm basing it upon it's dependency on culture.

yet we now have a scientific culture which is able to prove the truth of right ideas, via the building of knowledge on top of knowledge to create new theories, and those theories prove themselves true by being able to be put into practice exactly as theorised.

None of the same things existed within the 'science' (which wasn't really science! - where was the testing?) that concluded those things you mentioned.

We will inevitably transcend our own epistemological basis and look back and laugh on some of the assumptions of this period in hisory too.

I'm sure we will in some instances. A very good candidate for that is the bollocks the philosophy you subscribe to has you spouting.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the conclusions we reach via science now have a hugely stronger basis for those conclusions than was the case with the instances from the past that you've mentioned.

We are operating now from a very different place, yet your take on things has at its core that we're not - thus making your philosophical methodology the exact same primitive thinking as the primitive conclusions it gives you.

[worm]

yet we now have a scientific culture which is able to prove the truth of right ideas

[eFestivals]

Only according to its axioms, which are informed by history.

utterly wrong.

It's according to evidence: the proof gained by putting a theory into practice and finding it does exactly what was expected. It doesn't prove the theory itself of course, but it does get to show the assumptions of effects that the theory has is correct.

There is nothing remotely similar to this within the core idea you're philosophising from. They were simply ideas without a shred of any proof for any part of them.

Which brings things back to the same inconsistencies of thought that has you believing that god ideas have the same basis in reality as scientific ones. They simply don't.

Our past assumptions still inform our contemporary knowledge systems, which inform scientific theory. You can't evaluate anything without a theory and in doing so you are only testing the theory.

Correct.

But they ARE tested and proven to work - something which did not happen with the ideas from history that you've mentioned, and which form the basis of the philosophical stance you're taking towards science.

That comes out as you having an untested philosophical stance towards science, while my stance towards science has been tested and proven.

One has a basis only in the 'reality' of the past and has no supporting evidence aside from primitive assumption (and has since been shown to NOT work), while the other is fully tested and is shown to work.

I'm not spouting anything. I'm rejecting. You're the one espousing the philosophy that culture can interpret reality without methodological bias.

PMSL.

As you admit there, you have a methodological bias to your own thinking. I realise I have nothing different.

Yet I have a working method to my own bias - I can present countless examples of things that have been proven to work from the method I subscribe to.

You have nothing aside from a method - and a method that is shown to NOT work. You might as well be farting against the wind and claiming that's the basis for all reality, the strength of your argument is simply no better than that.

That doesn't make them right.

I know. Just as it doesn't make your own ideas right.

Yet it's still the case that one set of ideas has substance behind them, to give them a large amount of proof for a large amount of it. You don't have the same to your own thinking.

That's the problem Neil. It's the place that defines what we consider to be true, not the truth itself. I don't trust the place.

PMSL

You "don't trust the place" - fair enough - yet you (claim to ) place your trust instead in ideas far more primitive and with far less substance, evidence and testing.

I say "claim to", because you simply don't. You turn on the TV and expect - trust - that you'll get a picture; a picture that is delivered to you by all of the things you claim to not trust.

If anything of 'the place' isn't to be trusted, it's the drivel you're spouting right here. You don't even trust it yourself within your own reality, as your actions get to prove.

[worm]

utterly wrong.

[worm]

I know. Just as it doesn't make your own ideas right.

[eFestivals]

I'm afraid it's entirely correct Neil, as any scientist will tell you.

No, any scientist nowadays will tell you that they're informed by evidence and not history. You're clearly stuck with that primitive thinking.

According to an axiom that we do not know to be true.

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You're making assertions about truth, I'm not.

No, I'm making assertions about evidence and proof, not truth.

No I don't.

Yes you do. You reject evidence and proof in favour of unproven and untested thought.

Except, when digging a little deeper into those thoughts of yours, they ARE tested - and proven to be false. Because...

Your whole idea is based within ideas such as "scientists were wrong when they believed the world was flat and so they might also be wrong about (say) electrical flows" which within itself is fine.

Yet there was never a test back then for whether the world was flat - it was purely assumption - and tests since then have proven that idea wrong, which also comes to mean that the whole basis of your philosophical stance is based on wrong assumptions such as these.

You are saying that both then and now has identical circumstances. They do not.

But I'm pissing myself that for once you're working up to now from a historical reference point, when you've previously categorically stated that such things can't be used for deductions for what we have now. Your whole philosophical stance is warped (tho that's not something I've just discovered), and from the error you have just about everything wrong.

Edited March 24, 2011 by eFestivals

[Ed209]

This is the problem I have with Worm's stance. Surely the philosophical view points that he's using are far greater influenced by civilization and time than science is. He's just spouting stuff that has been totally conceived within a human's brain and are totally a consequence of the culture and time they live in. Meaning any conclusions this philosophy stuff comes to about science is itself totally flawed, and actually very hypocritical ... no?

[eFestivals]

This is the problem I have with Worm's stance. Surely the philosophical view points that he's using are far greater influenced by civilization and time than science is. He's just spouting stuff that has been totally conceived within a human's brain and are totally a consequence of the culture and time they live in. Meaning any conclusions this philosophy stuff comes to about science is itself totally flawed, and actually very hypocritical ... no?

Yup, that's about the heart of it.

But it's actually worse than that, because it's not a philosophical view that's taken from current culture and knowledge, but a view that's base is rooted in 'primitive' culture and knowledge - as demonstrated by the idea he's putting forwards that "because knowledge has been wrong centuries ago we're just as likely to be wrong with current knowledge".

It's ignoring the fact that our knowledge systems have progressed to somewhere different - and with a solid evidential base - than there was at that time he's using as the base-point for that idea.

[worm]

Surely the philosophical view points that he's using are far greater influenced by civilization and time than science is. He's just spouting stuff that has been totally conceived within a human's brain and are totally a consequence of the culture and time they live in. Meaning any conclusions this philosophy stuff comes to about science

[worm]

No, any scientist nowadays will tell you that they're informed by evidence and not history. You're clearly stuck with that primitive thinking.

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

No, I'm making assertions about evidence and proof, not truth.

Yes you do. You reject evidence and proof in favour of unproven and untested thought.

Except, when digging a little deeper into those thoughts of yours, they ARE tested - and proven to be false. Because...

Your whole idea is based within ideas such as "scientists were wrong when they believed the world was flat and so they might also be wrong about (say) electrical flows" which within itself is fine.

Yet there was never a test back then for whether the world was flat - it was purely assumption - and tests since then have proven that idea wrong, which also comes to mean that the whole basis of your philosophical stance is based on wrong assumptions such as these.

You are saying that both then and now has identical circumstances. They do not.

But I'm pissing myself that for once you're working up to now from a historical reference point, when you've previously categorically stated that such things can't be used for deductions for what we have now. Your whole philosophical stance is warped (tho that's not something I've just discovered), and from the error you have just about everything wrong.

[worm]

"because knowledge has been wrong centuries ago we're just as likely to be wrong with current knowledge".

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[worm]

For example, there's lots of money to be made in war and computer technology. Hence science goes into developing war technology and graphic design so we get loads of knowledge about that.

In a different era, such as the enlightenment, there was lots of money to be made in Empire expasnsion and new forms of government. So science moved into political and social science and we got a load of knowledge about those too.

All of that knowledge and new science is based upon a cultural axiom. The sciences of war tactics and computer technology have combined in recent years, due to the axiomatic pressure placed on them by dominant theory.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I'm saying that scientific knowledge is not free of this process. That's all I'm pointing out. Science relies on language, reality does not.

so why do you put everything on (your weird version of) science, but credit f**k all to anything from reality?

[eFestivals]

All bollocks.

All scientific analysis is based upon an axiom Neil. That's a fact.

In your world that's free of all reality, perhaps.

[worm]

so why do you put everything on (your weird version of) science, but credit f**k all to anything from reality?

[worm]

In your world that's free of all reality, perhaps.

[Kizzie]

All bollocks.

All scientific analysis is based upon an axiom Neil. That's a fact.

[eFestivals]

I'm saying that because the dominant theories of a certain time interpret scientific evidence, the conclusion cannot be trusted.

I can prove this 100% wrong.

Come round here, I'll punch you in the face, and I bet you £1000 you can be 100% sure of trusting the result of the theory I have.

I'm not devaluing science, I'm saying that the knowledge gathered from scientific analysis is focused in a certain direction. Because of that, what we know and come to know has been shaped by culture.

True.

But luckily not all of us live in a culture of stupidity.

[eFestivals]

Eh?

and by not understanding the question/statement you get to prove it true.

[worm]

Sort of the equivalent of 'unwitting testimony' ?

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[worm]

and by not understanding the question/statement you get to prove it true.

[eFestivals]

You're spouting cryptic bollocks again. This is a dialogue, not a monologue.

What am I putting on science and not on reality? Reality is evident, science is not. Science has to denote reality in a linguitic framework. I don't trust that framework.

I gave you dialogue (which is nothing different from a monologue btw. I'd have thought someone who believes himself such an English expert would know that ). It's only cryptic because it's beyond your comprehension.

Reality - the fact that (say) your TV works in the exact same way as was theorised before its design and construction - gets to prove the science behind it, and free of any and all cultural ideas.

Culture only comes into it as a reason for its creation and the form it takes; reality gets to prove the science that allowed its creation - free of any and all culture.

Whether the theory behind that science is 100% correct or not can ultimately be ignored. The 'why' it works is of little importance to the fact that it DOES work. The working proves the science, irrespective of the theory.

Edited March 24, 2011 by eFestivals

[Guest musiclove123]

I just know I will forget to fill it in on Sunday...

[worm]

Reality - the fact that (say) your TV works in the exact same way as was theorised before its design and construction - gets to prove the science behind it, and free of any and all cultural ideas.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm