@thejoint, I really enjoy reading your posts. Re: what you said about the Scientific Method being, in essence, unproveable as it relies on some basic assumptions (such as a positivistic Universe). It's a thought provoking point, and I agree entirely.
I am quite a skeptical person, and since I was young, I have used a sort-of "probability-based" way of understanding the world. I understand that nothing can be proved 100% one way or the other, but if something has overwhelming evidence that it exists (such as the force of gravity), then I "pretend" that it is 100% true. Equally, I find the concept of a God has so little evidence, that I "pretend" that it is 100% false, and call myself an atheist.
So, although I understand that the Scientific Method DOES make some philosophical assumptions in order to work, it seems that through repetition and empiricism it gives us a better idea of the world than anything else. Of course, this isn't strictly true (why should the number of repetitions make anything more certain if the universe isn't positivistic in the first place...)
Oh man, this is why I try not to think too deeply about this sort of shit, you get to a point and realize that nothing can ever be proven, your life is totally insignificant, you might not even exist and nothing is real.
First, thanks
A slight clarification on the positivistic Universe assumption: This assumption is used specifically because it controls for the observer in data collection. By controlling for the observer, we can make "objective" claims about one thing in relation to some other thing(s). This is perfectly valid, but one must simply know its implications. Accordingly, I'm not sure I would describe the Scientific Method as "unproveable." It's perfectly valid and can lead to sound conclusions, but in this case, "sound" always has a margin-of-error attached to it.
Tying to your last sentence, I think you can prove things in the absolute sense of the word. There is no margin-of-error attached to our understanding of the limitations of inductive reasoning. This constitutes '
a priori' knowledge, independent of experience, and there's a lot of it available to us. For all relevant consideration, logic is a predicate for truth and not vice-versa.
And yeah, sometimes I need a break from it, too
No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).
I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of
a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).
You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.
Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.
snip-
Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?
All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.
The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.
The most fundamental metric is binary. A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist. For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.
Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it. Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.
Secondary metrics provide similar functions. For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric. If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous. Neat, eh?
In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all. Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements. The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects. Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.
So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't. Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them. Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.
This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.
I
think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.
On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the
necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?
Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?
(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...
)
