Feyerabend and Relativism

[Seperates]

Well, no... I'm using the success of the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's not the same as circular reasoning.

It is; you are using the scietific method to demostrate that the scientific method works.

You are saying that becosue it has "work" several times in the past, it will "work" in the future.
That my friend; is applying the scientific method.

No... the scientific method does not state whether or not something will "work". It is methodology used to either accuratly verify observations of reality, determine the "cause" of some "outcome", or predict the "outcome" of some "cause." Whether it works or not is simple "evolution of technology/knowledge" theory.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Wrong. Maybe in the circle of postmodernist "philosophers" that you read, but wrong everywhere else.

Obiously; not all philosofers agree.

Truth that is subjective is not real truth.

Thats my point, there are no real truths, and if they exists they cant be reached.

Come on, this is a basic fallacy called a category error. Perception of reality and reality are not the same thing.

Its was an example for you to think about, every knowlage we have comes from our senses, but not all senses are equal (cows and humans) therefore, our "truth" is conditioned by our biology. There could be a reality we cant percieve becouse our senses doesnt allow us to, or there could be no reality, the point is that we cant know.

Axioms are not dogmas. Mathematics doesn't work that way

Math requires the existance of certain concepts that are social conventions, Math is not something natural that exists independently of humanity.

Weren't Ancient Greeks primarily concerned with the use of reason to derive EXACTLY rather than approximately true conceptions of reality?

The one I was referencing were the majority of greek philosofers, the ones who belive in the "not to be" or similar concepts; like Plato beliveving in the "world of ideas" and the "sensible world".

Why is your spelling so bad?

English is not my first language.

No it's not. The scientific method is more than just induction.

Of course; but let me explain it differently;

If you belive that Science is the only way to reach Knowlage (and thus prove validity); then Science cant be proven valid in any other way than through science itself; which would be circular and invalid.

The same applies to any other method of proving validity.

So, as any existing or future method of proven validity cant be proven valid itself, they are all equally valid between themself

[Seperates]

Of course; but let me explain it differently;

If you belive that Science is the only way to reach Knowlage (and thus prove validity); then Science cant be proven valid in any other way than through science itself; which would be circular and invalid.

The same applies to any other method of proving validity.

So, as any existing or future method of proven validity can be proven valid itself, they are all equally valid between themself

The thing is that the scientific method is rather self-evident. It basically tells you, "You see that thing right there? Wonder why/how it works? Why don't you try to isolate it's cause by eliminating the extremities and seeing if it works the same way. If it does, you should try again to make sure you isolated the correct variable. And if it doesn't, you may have cut the one that causes it to happen. But either way, you should test again, no?"

It's common sense logic. And the fact that it has produced such fantastic results should be evidence enough for it's validity in assessing the truth of reality.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Thats my point, there are no real truths, and if they exists they cant be reached.

At best, AT BEST, you can argue that truths can't be reached. However, the notion that there is nothing which is true is self-contradictory. Even the notion that truth cannot be reached is shaky, and requires justification, and is probably false, given the discrete nature of certain truth claims.

Its was an example for you to think about, every knowlage we have comes from our senses, but not all senses are equal (cows and humans) therefore, our "truth" is conditioned by our biology. There could be a reality we cant percieve becouse our senses doesnt allow us to, or there could be no reality, the point is that we cant know.

There already are aspects of reality that we know about that we can't sense. That's where instruments come into play.

Math requires the existance of certain concepts that are social conventions, Math is not something natural that exists independently of humanity.

Nonsense. Natural number algebra showed up in EVERY society that had counting because it actually functions well to model basic aspects of reality. Sure, you can study other math structures, but they're not all equally applicable to reality, and thus can't really be said to be totally arbitrary. There's a reason integer arithmetic was discovered time and time again and that sheaf cohomology is recent.

Of course; but let me explain it differently;

If you belive that Science is the only way to reach Knowlage (and thus prove validity); then Science cant be proven valid in any other way than through science itself; which would be circular and invalid.

The same applies to any other method of proving validity.

So, as any existing or future method of proven validity can be proven valid itself, they are all equally valid between themself

Except that I never said science was the only game in town. I'm a rational empiricist. This takes reason into account in addition to science. There are really no raw empiricists. All empiricists use reason to a degree. The differences lie in how much reason is used, and that largely depends on how much well-defined material is available to apply deduction to.

[The Shroud of Wally]

The thing is that the scientific method is rather self-evident

You ralise that "self-evident" is another word for saying dogmatic, dont you?

Yes, the scientific method may appear as common sense, still, that doesnt prove it validity.

[Seperates]

The thing is that the scientific method is rather self-evident

You ralise that "self-evident" is another word for saying dogmatic, dont you?

Yes, the scientific method may appear as common sense, still, that doesnt prove it validity.

Well, no. It's self-evident in the mean that it logically makes sense. And for a long time, it wasn't common sense.

But again, it works and is proven to work... so your point is quite moot.

[The Shroud of Wally]

At best, AT BEST, you can argue that truths can't be reached. However, the notion that there is nothing which is true is self-contradictory. Even the notion that truth cannot be reached is shaky, and requires justification, and is probably false, given the discrete nature of certain truth claims.

You are doing the positive accertion that "absolute truth" can be reached, you need the justification, not me. I cant deny the posibility of there not being nothing that is absolute true becosue I have no evidence to back up that there is something, so i treat it as a posibility.

There already are aspects of reality that we know about that we can't sense. That's where instruments come into play.

Instruments like a microscope? You use the sense of sight on a microscope. Instruments are used through our senses.

Nonsense. Natural number algebra showed up in EVERY society that had counting because it actually functions well to model basic aspects of reality.

Again, "Society"; "Model", those are indicators of non-natural human created concepts.

Except that I never said science was the only game in town. I'm a rational empiricist. This takes reason into account in addition to science.

If you use science to to justify science is invalid; if you use science and reason to justify science its also invalid. You need to justify science without using the scientific method at all.

[The Shroud of Wally]

You ralise that "self-evident" is another word for saying dogmatic, dont you?

Yes, the scientific method may appear as common sense, still, that doesnt prove it validity.

Well, no. It's self-evident in the mean that it logically makes sense. And for a long time, it wasn't common sense.

But again, it works and is proven to work... so your point is quite moot.

Im sorry, How was it proven that it worked?

You analised that science was aplied and when there were no variables that interfiered with the results, the conclusions drawn form experimentations were proven to coincide with the results

see what Im talking about?

[Seperates]

At best, AT BEST, you can argue that truths can't be reached. However, the notion that there is nothing which is true is self-contradictory. Even the notion that truth cannot be reached is shaky, and requires justification, and is probably false, given the discrete nature of certain truth claims.

You are doing the positive accertion that "absolute truth" can be reached, you need the justification, not me. I cant deny the posibility of there not being nothing that is absolute true becosue I have no evidence to back up that there is something, so i treat it as a posibility.

There already are aspects of reality that we know about that we can't sense. That's where instruments come into play.

Instruments like a microscope? You use the sense of sight on a microscope. Instruments are used through our senses.

Nonsense. Natural number algebra showed up in EVERY society that had counting because it actually functions well to model basic aspects of reality.

Again, "Society"; "Model", those are indicators of non-natural human created concepts.

Except that I never said science was the only game in town. I'm a rational empiricist. This takes reason into account in addition to science.

If you use science to to justify science is invalid; if you use science and reason to justify science its also invalid. You need to justify science without using the scientific method at all.

Hey, here's a question. What would you use instead of science? What is your grand theory that works so well that it could have us come into one century on horseback, and leave it traveling at Mach 10?

[The Shroud of Wally]

Hey, here's a question. What would you use instead of science? What is your grand theory that works so well that it could have us come into one century on horseback, and leave it traveling at Mach 10?

Lol, this is all philosofical and theorical arguments, its not suppoused to be practical at all. Its just meant for you to keep an open mind for if sometimes in the future another type of knowlage superior to science comes along (which may or might not happend).

[Seperates]

Well, no. It's self-evident in the mean that it logically makes sense. And for a long time, it wasn't common sense.

But again, it works and is proven to work... so your point is quite moot.

Im sorry, How was it proven that it worked?

You analised that science was aplied and when there were no variables that interfiered with the results, the conclusions drawn form experimentations were proven to coincide.

see what Im talking about?

That the internet you use has come about because the scientific method proved that silicon could be used to successfully store data when run with an electrical current? That planes, trains, and cars came about because somebody had the idea to test various models of engines based on the scientific observation that gases expanding at a fast rate have enough power to push a cylinder based piston?

[Four-sided Triangles]

You are doing the positive accertion that "absolute truth" can be reached, you need the justification, not me. I cant deny the posibility of there not being nothing that is absolute true becosue I have no evidence to back up that there is something, so i treat it as a posibility.

Take questions about the topology of space. Is space bounded or not? There's no in-between answer. You can't be approximately bounded. It's either bounded or it isn't. Ergo, if it is bounded, and we hold that it's bounded, we've reached an absolute truth, even if we can't prove that it's bounded, we've still reached it as a truth. We're not approximately correct if we hold space to be bounded if it is bounded. We are EXACTLY correct.

Instruments like a microscope? You use the sense of sight on a microscope. Instruments are used through our senses.

Now you being pedantic. Okay, so you're discussing the possibility of aspects of reality which cannot be detected in any way whatsoever? Ah, well, such things can't be absolutely proven false. However, you can show that any specific claim which asserts that there is something which cannot be detected in any way, even indirectly is almost surely false. In other words, you can show that any such claims have an infinitesimal probability. That's a pretty damn strong case to be made. This is part of the case for the almost sure convergence of scientific methodology.

Again, "Society"; "Model", those are indicators of non-natural human created concepts.

Bollocks. Societies are definitely naturally occurring structures, and the fact that certain kinds of mathematics ALWAYS appear in any civilization which starts modeling things is a fact that you cannot simply dismiss with semantic quibbling.

If you use science to to justify science is invalid; if you use science and reason to justify science its also invalid. You need to justify science without using the scientific method at all.

My validation is based on almost sure convergence of scientific methodology. It's also based on the assumption that one should want to find out things that are actually true.

[The Shroud of Wally]

That the internet you use has come about because the scientific method proved that silicon could be used to successfully store data when run with an electrical current? That planes, trains, and cars came about because somebody had the idea to test various models of engines based on the scientific observation that gases expanding at a fast rate have enough power to push a cylinder based piston?

So?

Yes, Science is practical, but practicality doesnt equate validity

[Seperates]

Hey, here's a question. What would you use instead of science? What is your grand theory that works so well that it could have us come into one century on horseback, and leave it traveling at Mach 10?

Lol, this is all philosofical and theorical arguments, its not suppoused to be practical at all. Its just meant for you to keep an open mind for if sometimes in the future another type of knowlage superior to science comes along (which may or might not happend).

And I am engaging you in the philisophical and theoretical. And I will keep an open mind when that type of knowledge proves itself to be more useful practically than the scientific method, but by your definition, *shocker* that is the scientific method.

[Seperates]

That the internet you use has come about because the scientific method proved that silicon could be used to successfully store data when run with an electrical current? That planes, trains, and cars came about because somebody had the idea to test various models of engines based on the scientific observation that gases expanding at a fast rate have enough power to push a cylinder based piston?

So?

Yes, Science is practical, but practicality doesnt equate validity

Validity in what exactly? Because in the real world, practicality does equal validity.

[Four-sided Triangles]

And I am engaging you in the philisophical and theoretical. And I will keep an open mind when that type of knowledge proves itself to be more useful practically than the scientific method, but by your definition, *shocker* that is the scientific method.

If you're not into intellectual masturbation, you should probably leave this thread, because the topic of this thread naturally leads to academic danger wanking.

[Seperates]

And I am engaging you in the philisophical and theoretical. And I will keep an open mind when that type of knowledge proves itself to be more useful practically than the scientific method, but by your definition, *shocker* that is the scientific method.

If you're not into intellectual masturbation, you should probably leave this thread, because the topic of this thread naturally leads to academic danger wanking.

Oh no, I excel in mental masturbation, but I prefer to keep it to the more philisophical questions, like your observation that everything we think we observe in the present has actually occured in the past due to the nano-second gap between our sensory organs and our brain. I love that.

When someone starts discussing the notion of the practicality of the scientific method, pisses all over what it actually is, then starts theorizing what would be more valid than the scientific method, when that someone would have to use the scientific method to determine if it was more valid than the scientific method, the hypocritical nature of it pisses me off.

[The Shroud of Wally]

And I am engaging you in the philisophical and theoretical.

Yes, but you are asking me to come up with a more practical way of knowlage with science; and Im not advocating any.

And I will keep an open mind when that type of knowledge proves itself to be more useful practically than the scientific method, but by your definition, *shocker* that is the scientific method.

The thing is, that this new (and theorically superior) type of knowlage maight not pass the scrutiny of scientific method, becosue it will have its own new method of proving validity.

Just like Science didnt found aproval in religion becosue its conclusions were contradictionary to the conclusions draw by the method of knowlage utilised by religion, the same might or might not happen between this new type of knowlage and science.

Is space bounded or not? There's no in-between answer. You can't be approximately bounded.

I disagree, there are more options, there could be no space at all, there could be nothnig at all, in fact, the concept of boundary might not exist at all, who know?s, the posibility are endless.

so you're discussing the possibility of aspects of reality which cannot be detected in any way whatsoever?

or that can be detected, but conditioned by our biology (for example, detected in a different way)

However, you can show that any specific claim which asserts that there is something which cannot be detected in any way, even indirectly is almost surely false. In other words, you can show that any such claims have an infinitesimal probability

Im doing a negative assertion, you are doing the positive, you would have to prove that absolute truths exists and have been or could been reached. If not, logic dicatates otherwise.

Societies are definitely naturally occurring structures, and the fact that certain kinds of mathematics ALWAYS appear in any civilization which starts modeling things is a fact that you cannot simply dismiss with semantic quibbling.

Im not, Im just saying, Humans then Math. and Not Math then Humans.

My validation is based on almost sure convergence of scientific methodology. It's also based on the assumption that one should want to find out things that are actually true.

Again, find out the "true" is a scientific concept rejected by almost any important ephistemologist, From Popper to Kant, including Fayerabend.

[The Shroud of Wally]

When someone starts discussing the notion of the practicality of the scientific method

Im not, you are, Im discussing the notion of Validity of the scientific method.

then starts theorizing what would be more valid than the scientific method

Im not, Feyerabend is, which is the theory Im explaining right now.

when that someone would have to use the scientific method to determine if it was more valid than the scientific method, the hypocritical nature of it pisses me off.

I never said that we should use the scientific method to determin if the new type of knowlage is better, in fact, i said the exact oposite.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Validity in what exactly? Because in the real world, practicality does equal validity.

Validity as when used aplied in logics.

[Seperates]

Yes, but you are asking me to come up with a more practical way of knowlage with science; and Im not advocating any.

The thing is, that this new (and theorically superior) type of knowlage maight not pass the scrutiny of scientific method, becosue it will have its own new method of proving validity.

Just like Science didnt found aproval in religion becosue its conclusions were contradictionary to the conclusions draw by the method of knowlage utilised by religion, the same might or might not happen between this new type of knowlage and science.

See, but the thing is, science, in this reality, works. Thousands died because nuclear theory worked. We've been to the moon because Newtonian mechanics worked. Cars run because the Laws of Thermodynamics work. Diseases evolve because evolutionary theory works. Now, it's a fair point to argue that none of these work BECAUSE of the scientific method. But that's not my point. By the methodology of the scientific method/observation, we can assertain HOW it works, and, most importantly REPLICATE it and use it to our own devices, which is something that religious methodology has never, and can never, do.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I disagree, there are more options, there could be no space at all, there could be nothnig at all, in fact, the concept of boundary might not exist at all, who know?s, the posibility are endless.

Except that, in any meaningful sense, space does exist. There could be something beneath it, but it exists.

Nonetheless, I've already explained how humans could get to the truth exactly. If they hold that space is bounded, and space IS bounded, then they are exactly correct about the boundedness of space.

Even with the possibility of there being no space at all, that STILL a discrete ensemble of possibilities.

In addition, the concept of boundedness is NOT the same thing as a "boundary." Boundedness is a sensible concept which can be applied to any space at all. If space exists, then it is either bounded, or it isn't. Basic logic dictates this.

or that can be detected, but conditioned by our biology (for example, detected in a different way)

What does this even mean? If something can be detected, then, in principle, a machine can be built which can detect it. Then, the machine can translate that detection into sensory data. The only way for this to not be the case is for the thing to be something which cannot be detected by anything at all.

Im doing a negative assertion, you are doing the positive, you would have to prove that absolute truths exists and have been or could been reached. If not, logic dicatates otherwise.

What is the difference between "absolute truth" and plain old garden variety truth? You've still not coherently explained the difference, making all assertions containing the phrase "absolute truth" intellectually vacuous.

Nonetheless, logic REQUIRES the existence of truth, for logic is a propositional calculus which works upon truth and falsehood.

Also, I think something being almost surely not the case is so close to being certain that it can be treated as certainty in all but the most pedantic of cases.

Im not, Im just saying, Humans then Math. and Not Math then Humans.

No, mathematics as a study requires humans, but mathematics as the structures being studied requires no humans at all.

Again, find out the "true" is a scientific concept rejected by almost any important ephistemologist, From Popper to Kant, including Fayerabend.

Bullshit. Truth is a METAPHYSICAL concept. You're being very sloppy with your thinking here. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between metaphysics and epistemology, and as a result, you keep making nonsensical assertions due to category errors.

[Seperates]

When someone starts discussing the notion of the practicality of the scientific method

Im not, you are, Im discussing the notion of Validity of the scientific method.

then starts theorizing what would be more valid than the scientific method

Im not, Feyerabend is, which is the theory Im explaining right now.

when that someone would have to use the scientific method to determine if it was more valid than the scientific method, the hypocritical nature of it pisses me off.

I never said that we should use the scientific method to determin if the new type of knowlage is better, in fact, i said the exact oposite.

Then how do you suppose we will see if that type of knowledge is better?

[The Shroud of Wally]

See, but the thing is, science, in this reality, works

Im not saying that Science is impractical, or that it doesnt work. or that we should not use it. Im only making the point that the validity of Science cannot be proven; thats all.

Im not saying its invalid, Im not saying its valid even, Im simply claiming that the only way to prove its valididty is through science and therefore, its validite reamins unproven.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Im not saying that Science is impractical, or that it doesnt work. or that we should not use it. Im only making the point that the validity of Science cannot be proven; thats all.

Im not saying its invalid, Im not saying its valid even, Im simply claiming that the only way to prove its valididty is through science and therefore, its validite reamins unproven.

Until you actually define what "proving" science even means in this context, this post is just a word salad.