- Posting Speed
- Speed of Light
- Writing Levels
- Douche
- Preferred Character Gender
- No Preferences
*Hopes that Unanun will start his next post with "Let me try again"*
>:)
>:)
You are, I feel, deliberately being obtuse. If you do not believe in objective truth, then attempt to fly off a building - if you believe, then it should be no problem.This is an argument based around the belief in objectivity vs subjectivity. I believe in absolute subjectivity, and from previous debates, I know it is fruitless to try to convince either side to believe the opposite, so I'll let this part go.
Progress is easily quantifiable if you assign it an interpretation free number. Can humanity today make more widgets than it did one thousand years ago? Yes. It has progressed by increasing its ability to make goods. Is this better or worse? Uh oh, you've just introduced an opinion! The number before increases with time. That is progress. Is it a good or bad thing? Who knows!Is more precision better? You think so, but not everyone does. As science has so often shown, if somethng is false once, it is no longer true.
And there have been many time where being more precise has led to "worse" situations than otherwise.
*Sigh* I have said over and over again that science does not better anything. All it does is reveal objective truth. Truth does not equal betterment.Just because many people can see beauty in a world of science, doesn't mean that everyone does. Science is not objectively bettering us.
Sorry, I had been equating better with superior. My mistake.I have said over and over again that science does not better anything. All it does is reveal objective truth. Truth does not equal betterment.
You are entirely correct. That was me being an idiot.When people say this without giving a specific example, I simply have no idea how to respond. It is the most generic, factless rebuttal ever ...
I could say the same of you. That argument is absurd.You are, I feel, deliberately being obtuse. If you do not believe in objective truth, then attempt to fly off a building - if you believe, then it should be no problem.
So you're saying higher numbers are superior?Progress is easily quantifiable if you assign it an interpretation free number. Can humanity today make more widgets than it did one thousand years ago? Yes. It has progressed by increasing its ability to make goods. Is this better or worse? Uh oh, you've just introduced an opinion! The number before increases with time. That is progress. Is it a good or bad thing? Who knows!
Books and other writings on philosophy. There is a greater number of philosophical writings today than there was when philosophy first started, therefore there is advancement ('progress')
Measure it like that. Ask a kid a question and count the number of answers he can come up with by accessing the various ideas around him. Then compare that to the number of ideas a pig farmer's bastard would have.
—is subjective to interpretation.interpretation free number
unanun said:I went through each and every definition of both and showed to you why nothing philosophy has done can be done as progress or be considered as superior to previous versions of philosophy.
Progress is basically saying 'gradual betterment.' Of course, betterment in measurement is easily quantified - more precision, more knowledge, etc. The same cannot be said for philosophy. Jorrick attempted to convince me that philosophy makes immeasurable progress. If you can't measure even define how to measure it, how are you supposed to say it underwent 'gradual betterment'?
The same idea falls under the word 'superior'.
unanun said:I'm pretty sure I refuted most of them, including his claim that science is never 100% correct o_o.
unanun said:Progress is easily quantifiable if you assign it an interpretation free number. Can humanity today make more widgets than it did one thousand years ago? Yes. It has progressed by increasing its ability to make goods. Is this better or worse? Uh oh, you've just introduced an opinion! The number before increases with time. That is progress. Is it a good or bad thing? Who knows!
unanun said:*Sigh* I have said over and over again that science does not better anything. All it does is reveal objective truth. Truth does not equal betterment.
@Asmodeus but I am not convinced that access to more information is progress. For all the access to new information, no new truth has been produced.
This encroaches on sophistry. Of course, you can squeeze into doubt where, as far as we can tell, there is none. Is there a teapot floating between earth and mars? Is there god? Maybe. Of course I can't say with complete and absolute certainty there isn't. Is there a ghost behind you about to stab you? Maybe. Most likely almost completely probably not. Clinging to an untestable hope - that perhaps people could one day spontaneously fly from the tops of buildings - is irrational.As far as we can tell, people can't jump off a building and fly. But decades or centuries down the line, we may find that to be absolutely false—we just didn't realize it was possible yet. Any "truth" is temporary and potentially refutable down the line, and therefore not objective.
You are correct. But the definition of progress is advancement in process, or superiority. Everyone who is not a sophist can agree that if an industrial process has advanced it makes more widgets in less time. If you are trying to argue with me that an axe that can chop through one thousand trees without dulling is inferior to one that can chop through a hundred in a similar fashion, or that our knowledge today is inferior to that of the greeks, I think we cannot debate more o_o—is subjective to interpretation.
If you measure technological progress, it is completely on an exponential curve.If we take the number of widgets we didn't discover between 200AD and 2014AD, then compare it to 200AD and 1500AD, the former is inferior.
This is wrong o_o. The gravitional force between two objects is well known.In how many contexts does gravity pull as opposed to push? Just about infinity, I'd say.
Uh oh .. when I, a phd student in theoretical chemistry, take criticism from someone, I need to ask for your qualification. Maddox wrote a pretty good article on that. I understand what you're saying about certainty in science. I addressed it above in my first reply.To be frank, if you believe science is ever 100% correct in an absolute sense then you are an awful scientist.
You are confusing me. Science reveals truths and/or relationships. We know photons are excitations of what we call a bosonic field. Is it a mathematical construct or the true reality? Enter philosophy. Does philosophy give us points of view that are testable? For the most part, no. Does the truth of the equations hold as far as we can test then? Yes. Can we refine the equation based upon more data? Yes. Science is data driven discovery. Philosophy isn't - it is an endless debate about viewpoints where there is no way to prove the truth of one over another.There is no objective truth to be had about what constitutes "better," therefore you cannot claim science or philosophy or anything else has become better (or worse) by any objective metric, therefore your argument of philosophy lacking objective betterment is completely invalid and your argument of science possessing objective betterment is also completely invalid.
If you measure technological progress, it is completely on an exponential curve.
This is wrong o_o. The gravitional force between two objects is well known.
I agree with you that access to information is truly remarkable progress. But that is my viewpoint, which I have to divorce myself from for this argument. At most, I will say that we have more access to information than before - but our opinion of whether that is good or not is just opinion.
Assuming you are correct, I don't see how this is a problem. I never claimed that science will make infinite and exponential progress. I only claim that science reveals "truths" (since you and Jorrick don't like that word) through experiment, and philosophy does not.My point was that if you measure by the things we have left to discover, the number is dropping as science moves forward.
You definitely were discussing how fast new technology is discovered. As far as I know, you were claiming that science can be judged to be doing less with time since there is less to discover. I claimed that you were wrong, based upon being in active research o_o.Secondly, my point was not that it was exponential. My point was that if you measure by the things we have left to discover, the number is dropping as science moves forward. Any superior number has an inferior opposite, and it is your opinion that determined which number you were basing your arguments off of.
You can, but then, again, I claim you are being a sophist if you claim to me that one industrial process that does things better and more efficiently than another is, for some reason, worse. We should both agree on its superiority. However, the value of human life will never be assigned an answer because it depends on points of view. It is not universally agreed upon.You say that whether we have more information or not being good is based off opinion. The exact same can be said for scientific knowledge, technology, and production. I can tell stories where each superior situation is detrimental, for there are no pareto improvements in the real world.
Perhaps mistakenly, I tried to draw a parallel in industrial processes where advances have been made regardless of our beliefs. We may disagree on the utility of a more durable axe - you say it does less for a blacksmith, I say it does more for the lumberjack. Yet the fact remains that the axe can still make tenfold more cuts than before. That will never change. Your opinion of its utility is an opinion. The fact that an industrial process makes more widgets today than yesterday is unchanged.An axe that stays sharp longer helps the lumberjack, but not the blacksmith—or whoever it is that makes axes these days. I guess that means we cannot debate any more.
I just came by to say this...Okay .. but I'm not debating on what the axe is used for. An axe that makes a thousand cuts before dulling is measurably superior to a similar axe that can only do ten. Its utility does not matter. Can you make the same claim about philosophy - has it ever produced a viewpoint that is more truthy or more valid than any other viewpoint?
But there are times that Science has been proven wrong and times when it's progress hurt more people than help. Also don't you need philosophy to think up some questions and hypothesis FOR science? That would mean the two should go hand in hand right? cause if we don't think and ponder to ourselves the possibilities and create questions that we desire to be answered than what would the world be like? Without the hypothesis, there really isn't any science to be had. Wouldn't this also mean that philosophy makes progress in a way indirectly because Science made progress? I'd like to think so. But than again that's my thought on the matter that I learned from asking myself that very question after reading this thread.Assuming you are correct, I don't see how this is a problem. I never claimed that science will make infinite and exponential progress. I only claim that science reveals "truths" (since you and Jorrick don't like that word) through experiment, and philosophy does not.
It is true, I made a mistake. And then afterwards, I addressed my mistake, and corrected it. Being able to recognize my own failures does not make me automatically incorrect in all endeavors.You have set the precedence by throwing out, by your own admission, a vague statement before
How is this not vague? You bring forth no proof other than personal experience with the material at hand. That is exactly what I did, and I admitted it, then addressed it and gave proof. (Note, I don't want proof for that specific argument—it still doesn't understand what I was pointing out earlier. I'll explain at the end.)I claimed that you were wrong, based upon being in active research o_o.
Am I imprecise? Yes. I am using general terms because we are talking about a generalized field. It is difficult to be precise in a debate about ideas. As for me not getting to the point, that is something I have been told before. However, the issue is not that I never get to the point, but rather that I have already made my point. I always make my point in my first post, and any post after that is elaboration. This was my point, in my first post:I think your arguments are very imprecise and do not get to the point.
I have made many other points since, and have also elaborated on them.Progress in science is thus just as subjective as progress in philosophy.
I claim you are being a sophist if you claim to me that one industrial process that does things better and more efficiently than another is, for some reason, worse.
By your phrasing, that is impossible. If it is better, how can that mean it is worse? However, my point was that one perspective may dictate that something is better while a different viewpoint would see the same thing as worse. I argue that sharp axe is different from dull axe, and is both better and worse.You cannot say the better axe is worse.
Your credentials do not prove you correct in an argument. I myself am familiar with academic reading, not so much scientific. I am also not writing scientific literature at the moment, so I do not see how your practice helps you here.I am well practiced in reading scientific literature and I have read through your post twice and thrice to no avail.
Why should we both agree on that? Because you say so? That is your opinion.We should both agree on its superiority.
I was not discussing the rate of discovery, no.You definitely were discussing how fast new technology is discovered.
This has no substance. When I say that there are still expontentially many more things in science to discover and research based upon being in an active field, with my credentials as a phd student, then I ask that you accept my statement on faith. There's a difference - I can go and dig up journal publications by year, whatever whatnot. But it is reasonable, as two academics, for you to accept what I say on faith without me having to go do an exhaustive search. It derails the debate.And there have been many time where being more precise has led to "worse" situations than otherwise.
First, how very zero-sum game theory of you! Secondly, what do you think of an idea that a superior axe is one that holds its edge longer than an inferior one? You have to separate the idea that this superior axe may cause a loss of business to the seller because he has less frequent sales. The progression of science and application of it has to be divorced from your interpretation of its progress. Whether atomic energy caused society to go backwards or forwards is up to others to debate. But the fact that discoveries in physics advanced our understanding of the world (atoms are not indivisible?) represents a clear progression and refinement of physical theory.Everything that benefits one person is detrimental to another in some way or form. I could even bring technological quantifiers into consideration.
Scientific revolution is separate from philosophy. The printing press, gunpowder, the steam revolution and the atomic revolution all caused drastic changes in society. Philosophers are left behind stumbling to catch up with the revolution each time, to interpret them with their points of view that are correct in the given historical context.You 'refuted' them allright. With no hard evidence, no point to your argument other then circling back to "muh progressaiahn" and trying to claim that philosophy needs some predetermined metric. You are discounting thousands of years of civilization, societal progress and great thinkers becouse of your own hardon for science. When you yourself is doing a terrible job actually representing said science. Science is about evidence, it's about theories and hypothesis and constantly questioning and asking questions as to how things work. Yet you try to metaphorically dickslap anyone who do not take your word for the truth. You would make a god awful scientist if you treat everyone of a different opinion then you that way.
I did say I'm studying economy. ;]First, how very zero-sum game theory of you!
Why should my interpretation of its progress be divorced from the situation, but not yours? This—The progression of science and application of it has to be divorced from your interpretation of its progress.
is your interpretation. If you divorce your interpretation from the situation, we are left with a sharp axe and a less-sharp axe. Progress is dependent upon interpretation, and you consistently fail to realize that you are giving your interpretation—or at least science's interpretation—of progress.an idea that a superior axe is one that holds its edge longer than an inferior one
—is not quantifiable. How much progress have we made in science? Five, six? Thirteen percent? It is impossible to quantify progress outside of contextual interpretation.But the fact that discoveries in physics advanced our understanding of the world (atoms are not indivisible?) represents a clear progression and refinement of physical theory.
Nice call. There's never any need for rude language.I'm ignoring your rudeness o_o
One needn't have any fancy qualification to be able to talk in a logical and informed manner about a topic. That would be an appeal to authority, or perhaps an appeal to accomplishment, and that's poor debating. I am familiar enough with the topic to understand the things being discussed, therefore I am qualified to criticize your position. Simple as that.Uh oh .. when I, a phd student in theoretical chemistry, take criticism from someone, I need to ask for your qualification. Maddox wrote a pretty good article on that. I understand what you're saying about certainty in science. I addressed it above in my first reply.
You are confusing me. Science reveals truths and/or relationships. We know photons are excitations of what we call a bosonic field. Is it a mathematical construct or the true reality? Enter philosophy. Does philosophy give us points of view that are testable? For the most part, no. Does the truth of the equations hold as far as we can test then? Yes. Can we refine the equation based upon more data? Yes. Science is data driven discovery. Philosophy isn't - it is an endless debate about viewpoints where there is no way to prove the truth of one over another.
I suppose that the scientific revolution was, as you may claim, a philosophical view point. On that we agree that philosophy produced something useful - the idea that view points can be tested and discarded as nonconformal with reality. On the idea of morals, ethics, and all that other subjective stuff - I cannot agree with you.
I am also going to advance the provocative hypothesis that all major revolutions (mind you, I am not using the word 'advance') in society have been driven by scientific study, not by philosophy. From printing press to gunpowder to steam power to electricity, all the transformative changes in society have been driven by technological discovery - philosophy did not advocate or predict or show us how to deal with any of this - it only spent its time catching up.
See above for how science actually doesn't reveal truths. Even so, even if I were to agree that it does for the sake of argument, you've completely ignored the point I was making and went off on a tangent. You defined progress as "gradual betterment." "Better" is a subjective term and cannot be objectively measured. By your own previous arguments only objective measurements can define progress. I then provided objective measurements we could use, one of which was your own proof of progress in science, which you ignored completely as far as I can tell. Can you respond to that directly rather than rehashing the stuff you've already said before? How can you defend progress in science with subjective terms whilst saying subjective terms don't work for showing progress in philosophy? Your arguments lack internal consistency, please rectify this if you want to continue having a rational discussion on the topic.You have to discard the idea that philosophy makes no progress as having a bad connotation. The nature of philosophy is that it can never make progress because it is entirely based upon points of view. The the value of human life has never been agreed upon. It has ranged from being entirely worthless to one of the fundamental rights. And still no one can agree on how much a human life is worth. To claim otherwise is to be completely slave to your present social context.
I think you are correct that I cannot give an exact quantification. Perhaps you can invent a number such that it compresses all of our pursuits into the number from 0 to 1, or I can do the same from 0 to 100. Yet I believe no matter what metric you care to invent, if we measure the advancement in understanding of the physical world, the number must increase. Of course you can invent some spurious metric that makes it go from 0 to -1, but meh.How much progress have we made in science? Five, six? Thirteen percent? It is impossible to quantify progress outside of contextual interpretation.
And this is why I believe you do need a bit of qualification. I understand what you're saying, I am completely familiar with the whole post that told me something I already know.One needn't have any fancy qualification to be able to talk in a logical and informed manner about a topic.
Your fixation on asserting to me over and over that science can never prove anything true shows, I think, that you are not actively practicing science. Again, I believe you. But to claim that science never produces laws or theories (not hypothesis) by hiding in the 6-sigma tail is to have a gross lack of understanding in statistics (which Holmishire will no doubt school me on). It is the same as claiming we can never truly disprove that god exists or that a teacup is floating in our solar system. To operate on the side that assumes these things can exist is extremely irrational. It is rational to operate on the assumption that the teacup, as far as we can tell, does not exist.