Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

And yet earlier you said.



So unless your prior statement can be proven through science then who cares? What was the statement?



If this is an unproven assertion, I have no need to accept it as a fact. If it is a proven one, it defeats itself.

Must really suck to get scientism destroyed so easily.

You haven't destroyed anything AP, statements aren't "things" that can be emprically tested as to whether they are true or not. We give the words their meaning and the truth behind those words is in the meaning we give to them. Why is a belief not knowledge of a fact? Because we give the words their meaning, therefore it is a fact that when we say we believe, it means that we do not know.

Or you could, you know, read him.

Or since you brought him up as a bolster to your argument you might want to do more than to mention his book.

I think you overestimate science. Science can never prove what you want it to do. It has to assume it.

An example please.

[Tassman]

Nothing in this statement has been proven by science. If it true, it defeats itself. If it is false, then things can be known without science.

Dang. That's easy.

Already presented. Keener. Your refutation?

No. Science can never prove it because science has to presuppose it. It would be like somehow proving you are not in a dream by looking at everything around you. You might as well try to prove you're not in the Matrix.

[Sparko]

The reason we do science Sparko is so that we can trust ourselves, so why wouldn't you trust science?

I asked if YOU trusted science?

[JimL]

I asked if YOU trusted science?

That was implied in my answer. Of course I trust science, thats why we do science, so as not to be fooled by our beliefs.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Unfortunately, none of this has been scientifically substantiated, so without having any science in this statement, which is simply a statement about the philosophy of science, I will take this claim that without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated as being unsubstantiated.



This might surprise you, but when people sign onto a faculty, that's because they've looked at the evidence and have come to a conclusion. They don't change it. Meanwhile, one does not say "Their data is invalid because of the presuppositions they have." The data is the data regardless but hey, if you're too scared to read something that disagrees with you, go ahead. I think I'll discount every atheistic idea I meet from now on because it comes from an atheist.

Oh. By the way, nothing in that statement was scientifically substantiated.



Nothing in this is scientifically substantiated so I have no reason to take it seriously.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You haven't destroyed anything AP, statements aren't "things" that can be emprically tested as to whether they are true or not. We give the words their meaning and the truth behind those words is in the meaning we give to them. Why is a belief not knowledge of a fact? Because we give the words their meaning, therefore it is a fact that when we say we believe, it means that we do not know.

Nothing of this has been demonstrated with science. As you said

You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science.

Since this has not been established by science, I therefore have no reason to believe it's true.

I can do this all day....

Or since you brought him up as a bolster to your argument you might want to do more than to mention his book.

Yeah. It's such a chore to have to read.

An example please.

The one I'm talking about. Prove by science that the material world exists outside your mind.

[Sparko]

That was implied in my answer. Of course I trust science, thats why we do science, so as not to be fooled by our beliefs.

why? You have shown over the years that you don't understand science at all. There is no way you could even begin to check out any of the science you believe, so is it just faith?

[JimL]

Nothing of this has been demonstrated with science. As you said



Since this has not been established by science, I therefore have no reason to believe it's true.

I can do this all day....

AP, please stop acting the idiot, its very unbecoming. Science is not needed in order to discover the meaning that we ourselves have given to words. If you truly need impirical evidence of the meaning of a word, a word such as "belief" for instance, or "knowledge," then look it up in the dictionary.

Yeah. It's such a chore to have to read.

Fight your own battles AP.

The one I'm talking about. Prove by science that the material world exists outside your mind.

First explain to me what exactly it is that you mean by mind.

[Apologiaphoenix]

AP, please stop acting the idiot, its very unbecoming. Science is not needed in order to discover the meaning that we ourselves have given to words. If you truly need impirical evidence of the meaning of a word, a word such as "belief" for instance, or "knowledge," then look it up in the dictionary.

But you see, if I believe a word has a certain meaning, that is a belief. How do I know if that belief is true or not? You've already told me.

You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science.

So I can't say the truth of what words mean unless that truth is established by science. I don't think you've done such yet so until you establish that truth by science, I see nothing said here.

Fight your own battles AP.

Already have. That's why I read what I agree with and what I disagree with. If you're not able to read something that challenges you, it won't keep me up at night.

First explain to me what exactly it is that you mean by mind.

I mean that you think that you are experiencing a reality I take it of something that is extramental. This world does not just exist in your head.

Can that be established using science?

[JimL]

why? You have shown over the years that you don't understand science at all. There is no way you could even begin to check out any of the science you believe, so is it just faith?

Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.

No. Faith is not a belief system. It's a response to what one already believes. It's an action. It's not an epistemology.

[Tassman]

Unfortunately, none of this has been scientifically substantiated, so without having any science in this statement, which is simply a statement about the philosophy of science, I will take this claim that without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated as being unsubstantiated.

anyScientific methodology can supply such substantiated evidence and discover new knowledge, whereas philosophy cannot. It is dependent upon existing knowledge.

This might surprise you, but when people sign onto a faculty, that's because they've looked at the evidence and have come to a conclusion. They don't change it. Meanwhile, one does not say "Their data is invalid because of the presuppositions they have." The data is the data regardless but hey, if you're too scared to read something that disagrees with you, go ahead. I think I'll discount every atheistic idea I meet from now on because it comes from an atheist.

his satisfaction. And no doubt people like you will agree with him given your religious beliefs.

But by investigating miracles occurring in the natural world, he is making a scientific claim and, as such, it requires testing by scientific methodology. To my knowledge all he has provided is anecdotal evidence. But science consists of

Oh. By the way, nothing in that statement was scientifically substantiated.

Word games!

Nothing in this is scientifically substantiated so I have no reason to take it seriously.

evidence of effective scientific methodology. But, whereas science demonstrably advances the body of knowledge and allows for prediction to enable further new knowledge, philosophy is unable to do so. It must rely on existing knowledge upon which to form a premise.

[JimL]

But you see, if I believe a word has a certain meaning, that is a belief. How do I know if that belief is true or not? You've already told me.

But you don't "believe" that a word has a certain meaning, you "know" that a word has a certain meaning, because we gave it that meaning. Will you continue to act the fool?

So I can't say the truth of what words mean unless that truth is established by science. I don't think you've done such yet so until you establish that truth by science, I see nothing said here.

Since language is our own creation, we don't need science to explain it to us AP. I can't believe I have to explain this to you!

Already have. That's why I read what I agree with and what I disagree with. If you're not able to read something that challenges you, it won't keep me up at night.

I am happy to read things that challenge me, thats why i'm discussing this with you. So, go ahead and challenge me with what you've learned instead of telling me to go read a book. If you are unable to do this on your own, in your own words, then i'll have to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about and there is no point in discussing it with you.

I mean that you think that you are experiencing a reality I take it of something that is extramental. This world does not just exist in your head.

Can that be established using science?

Thats not what I asked. I asked you to define what it is that you mean by a mind.

[Sparko]

Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.

It wasn't ad hominem, It was on point. Your posts regarding science (especially general relativity) show that you have no science background, and have a horrible grasp on science itself. And there is no way you can check out what scientist claim is true or not. Therefore you are believing in science entirely on faith. You merely believe they are right in what they claim, even though you have shown you don't even understand WHAT they are saying. And despite science revising itself and proving earlier truth claims to be not true as science progresses. You believe in shifting sand and can't even understand what sand is.

[JimL]

It wasn't ad hominem, It was on point. Your posts regarding science (especially general relativity) show that you have no science background, and have a horrible grasp on science itself. And there is no way you can check out what scientist claim is true or not. Therefore you are believing in science entirely on faith. You merely believe they are right in what they claim, even though you have shown you don't even understand WHAT they are saying. And despite science revising itself and proving earlier truth claims to be not true as science progresses. You believe in shifting sand and can't even understand what sand is.

I don't fully understand QM either Sparko, neither do you, but I do know that it works. Do you trust that QM works? People believe in science because it works, whether they fully understand it or not. Being that you asked the question, I take it that you don't trust in science? I guess then that it is you who believes in whatever you are told.