What happened...

[Gen. Volkov]

Firetooth, bugger off.

[Ragefur]

HEY...

Firetooth is my illegitimately begotten son. Be nice to him. I do fit his formula. O_o

Kuhn's point was that at different points in history different theoretical models are used or abandoned based on factors other than their empirical validity. Relativism is true if and only if there is an objective truth of some sort which we

Assumptions are weaker than beliefs. >.<

You should use the word KNOWLEDGE instead of fact, I think.  Facts are an issue of ontology(the way the world is) rather than issues of epistemology(Beliefs, Truth, and Knowledge). The whole area is really complicated.

In philosophy maybe it did. I don't think that's the case in the scientific community. But I could be wrong.

Exactly right. Scientists use things that are metaphysically and logically invalid... Which is my point...

The unification of those two theoretical models is the much sought after Theory of Everything

The is the Hegelian model of the scientific process, where you have two seemingly contradictory theories which are contained in a synthesis of the two, until everything is pure being... It gets complicated.

relativism
TRUE is a propositional statement which relates two things. A statement is true if and only if it corresponds to some fact about the way things actually are.

If you are committed to an objective external reality then you are committed to some form or relativism. Think of it this way:

Let's pretend there is a universe(called a possible world) in which two things exist. YOU and a BEACH BALL.

If you do not know every fact intrinsically about the Beach Ball(the idea of the beach ball wasn't placed in your mind by God), and must gather information about it through your  then you only know how it appears to you through your five senses.

This beach ball is entirely green, but you are colour blind and see it as red.

What colour is the beach ball? It seems that whenever you blog about your experiences with the beach ball's colour, then you would report that it is a red beach ball. This is true, because you are the only person who exists, so in a sense the truth of the beach ball's colour, shape, existence, etc. depends on certain aspects of the way you are. The truths about the beach ball are relative to you.

Here is an example from Science, before homosexuality was considered something that occurred in nature, scientists recorded few to no homosexual interactions when studying other species. Since societal attitudes towards homosexuality have changed, scient
ists have documented the occurrence of homosexuality in thousands of animal species at rates around the same as it occurs in human beings. The scientific measurements were influenced by societal beliefs. Relativism.

The center of the solar system is neither the earth nor the sun. The empirical center of an infinite space is wherever the observer is; this is simplistically because you can see the same distance in all directions. That is to say, we place the center of the solar system at the sun because it makes it easier to calculate planetary motion sometimes, however planetariums still model the solar system geocentrically, because geocentrism works better for them. Relativism. Additionally, geocentrism works a lot better for calculating the position of the moon. The center of an infinite space(or any area whose edges you can't see) is an arbitrary point chosen by the observer.

Also... The double slit experiment seems to empirically confirm relativism.

[Gen. Volkov]

Exactly right. Scientists use things that are metaphysically and logically invalid... Which is my point...

That's still very much under debate I believe.

Kuhn's point was that at different points in history different theoretical models are used or abandoned based on factors other than their empirical validity. Relativism is true if and only if there is an objective truth of some sort which we

I still don't think Kuhn is correct about why we abandoned certain ideas about the world. (I won't call them theories, because in scientific terms, those ideas do not fit the definition of theories.) Kuhn himself actually rejects relativism, as do I, because I think there are absolutes in the world. Well that and relativism can be used to justify horrible things.

Assumptions are weaker than beliefs. >.<

I know.

You should use the word KNOWLEDGE instead of fact, I think.  Facts are an issue of ontology(the way the world is) rather than issues of epistemology(Beliefs, Truth, and Knowledge). The whole area is really complicated.

Alright, I'll use knowledge, then, provided you agree that there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

The is the Hegelian model of the scientific process, where you have two seemingly contradictory theories which are contained in a synthesis of the two, until everything is pure being... It gets complicated.

Is it? I was not aware of what exactly it should be called.

Here is an example from Science, before homosexuality was considered something that occurred in nature, scientists recorded few to no homosexual interactions when studying other species. Since societal attitudes towards homosexuality have changed, scient
ists have documented the occurrence of homosexuality in thousands of animal species at rates around the same as it occurs in human beings. The scientific measurements were influenced by societal beliefs. Relativism.

That's not entirely true. Homosexuality seems to occur in humans at a higher rate than it does in most other species, as far as I know. Of course the kicker here is, of all the animal species that we know of that engage in homosexual behavior, almost none have members that are exclusively homosexual. They are all almost all what humans call "bisexual". There are a few which are like humans, for example some species of penguins have members that are exclusively and monogamously homosexual, but it's still very rare.

One idea here, are you sure these interactions were not recorded? Perhaps they were recorded, but not reported, and the changing social mores has made it more acceptable to report these findings, but has not changed whether these observations were made or not.

The center of the solar system is neither the earth nor the sun. The empirical center of an infinite space is wherever the observer is; this is simplistically because you can see the same distance in all directions. That is to say, we place the center of the solar system at the sun because it makes it easier to calculate planetary motion sometimes, however planetariums still model the solar system geocentrically, because geocentrism works better for them. Relativism. Additionally, geocentrism works a lot better for calculating the position of the moon. The center of an infinite space(or any area whose edges you can't see) is an arbitrary point chosen by the observer.

In terms of the gravitational center of the solar system, the center is the sun. The orbits don't work any other way, it's not "easier" it's flat impossible to calculate planetary motion in a non-heliocentric solar system. Planetariums, in the classic sense, are not modeling the solar system at all, they are a representation of the night sky. Modern planetariums have video shows and stuff though that explain how the solar system works. Classic planetariums though, that are just moving points of light are showing what a ground observer would see. I suppose that's relativism, but the audience and the planetarium operators both know that it's not objectively how the solar system or universe works.

Geocentrism, with modifications for the sun's influence on the moon, is the best way of calculating the position of the moon. Because the moon is the only natural object that actually orbits the Earth.

Since we don't know of any infinite spaces, that last statement is a moot point. Even the universe has an edge, though it is so big that figuring out the center is rather difficult.

Also... The double slit experiment seems to empirically confirm relativism.

It confirms the quantum nature of light, I'm not really sure if that confirms relativism though.

Firetooth is my illegitimately begotten son. Be nice to him. I do fit his formula. O_o

Don't care, he can still bugger off.

TRUE is a propositional statement which relates two things. A statement is true if and only if it corresponds to some fact about the way things actually are.

If you are committed to an objective external reality then you are committed to some form or relativism. Think of it this way:

Let's pretend there is a universe(called a possible world) in which two things exist. YOU and a BEACH BALL.

If you do not know every fact intrinsically about the Beach Ball(the idea of the beach ball wasn't placed in your mind by God), and must gather information about it through your  then you only know how it appears to you through your five senses.

This beach ball is entirely green, but you are colour blind and see it as red.

What colour is the beach ball? It seems that whenever you blog about your experiences with the beach ball's colour, then you would report that it is a red beach ball. This is true, because you are the only person who exists, so in a sense the truth of the beach ball's colour, shape, existence, etc. depends on certain aspects of the way you are. The truths about the beach ball are relative to you.

This would eventually reduce to Descartes "I think, therefore I am" argument. Yes, all my senses could be lying to me, but I'm going on the assumption that they are not. Descartes gives me some reason to think this, but it's still my assumption. As for relative, absolute, or consensus truths, it's too complicated for me to puzzle out. For me, I'd figure out the ball's color through the absorbed and reflected spectrum of light bouncing off the ball. I don't know really how to define "green-ness" but I do know that it's generally agreed that the green portion of the spectrum falls between 495 and 570 nm in wavelength. That's probably still relativism, but it's at least approaching absolute more closely than my eyes alone could.

[Firetooth]

Firetooth, bugger off.

looks like Im still popular!
I disagree, Im going to find some long rant on why I exactly shouldn't!

[Ragefur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
It's higher than in humans, and exclusive homosexual pairs are noted in all species. But that's not the point.

Knowledge is a Justified True Belief. Beliefs can be false, or unjustified or some combination of that.

If your facts are based in assumptions, and assumptions are unjustified beliefs, then your facts are basically unjustified.

Gravitational center...

So it's relative to what you are looking for... The observational center of the universe is the observer, the gravitational center of the solar system is the sun, the gravitational center of the galaxy is the great attractor, the gravitational center of the earth-moon system is the earth. None of these things are absolute. Science is based on the observations of observers, but there are no neutral observers.

Are you claiming that our scientific theories are the ultimate, and that science will never again be rewritten? That there will never be a scientific revolution again? That seems like a historical prejudice that is unreasonable. In 1,000 years science will be so different that they will be saying the same things about your theories as we say about phlogiston and geocentrism.

The trouble - as Kuhn would put it, is that you, a scientist, are already committed to the acceptance of a certain scientific paradigm. There's no problem with that, but you shouldn't claim that your assumptions are ultimate truth.

How do you define the opposite of relativism? If relativism states that observers stand in some kind of relation to the world, and that this can differ between observers such that seemingly contradictory statements about the world can both be true. The opposite of relativism is some form of exclusivity of viewpoint claim, wherein you say that there is only one perspective on the world which gives real truth(usually empiricism), and that all other perspectives are false.

[Gen. Volkov]

If your facts are based in assumptions, and assumptions are unjustified beliefs, then your facts are basically unjustified.

Assumptions are not unjustified beliefs. I'm not sure if they are beliefs at all. When you have a belief, you accept something as true, with or without proof. Assumptions are not known to be true, only thought to be. It is inherently weaker than a belief, you are correct about that.

"In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is made in the expectation that it will be discharged in due course via a separate argument." -Wikipedia

Oh, and since you can't have any argument without assumptions, then any argument you make is also unjustified, if you do not justify those assumptions in a separate argument. I am currently trying to find a good example of the justification for my assumption about statistics.

Knowledge is a Justified True Belief.

I think I already said that.

It's higher than in humans, and exclusive homosexual pairs are noted in all species. But that's not the point.

Do you have the stats for humans vs animals? Because they are not in that article. The problem we are hitting here is that in animal research, homosexuality is just engaging in homosexual behavior, and almost all species do that. But in humans, homosexuality is defined as being exclusively homosexual. It is distinguished from a bisexual or heterosexual orientation. So yes, the incidence of exclusively homosexual humans is lower than the incidence of homosexual behavior of any sort in animals. However, I'm pretty sure that the incidence of exclusive homosexual individuals is much higher in humans than in many other species. Exclusive homosexual pairs do exist in other species, but not in all species. Exclusive means those pairs would never engage in heterosexual behavior and most of those homosexual pairings actually do engage in heterosexual behavior, in order to produce offspring. There are a few species where the males pair off and never engage in heterosexual behavior, but it's limited to bird species. Homosexual behavior seems near universal, exclusive homosexuality appears to be very rare, and almost non-existent in mammals.\

So it's relative to what you are looking for... The observational center of the universe is the observer, the gravitational center of the solar system is the sun, the gravitational center of the galaxy is the great attractor, the gravitational center of the earth-moon system is the earth.

Well, actually the visible universe, while very large, is not infinite. It has an edge, so therefore must have a center, one that is not relative to the observer. The rest is true though.

None of these things are absolute. Science is based on the observations of observers, but there are no neutral observers.

Well it's pretty definite that the solar system has a gravitational center. I doubt that's going to change. Yes science is based on the observations of non-neutral observers, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of there being absolutes. I'm not saying that things are never relative to each other, what I am saying is that it is not true that everything is relative to everything else, which is what you seem to be claiming. There are absolutes. Things like Planck's constant, Newton's law of gravity, and the speed of light. Those things do not change, no matter who you are or where you are.

Are you claiming that our scientific theories are the ultimate, and that science will never again be rewritten? That there will never be a scientific revolution again? That seems like a historical prejudice that is unreasonable. In 1,000 years science will be so different that they will be saying the same things about your theories as we say about phlogiston and geocentrism.

Of course not. Science changes all the time, but I'm pretty sure that in 1,000 years, pi will still be the same, as will Planck's constant, Avogrado's number, and Newton's laws of motion. Theories can and do change, but that's not to say there is not constancy in the world. The basic laws of the universe aren't going to change. Or if they do, we won't know it, because we'll all be dead before we even realize something is different.

The trouble - as Kuhn would put it, is that you, a scientist, are already committed to the acceptance of a certain scientific paradigm. There's no problem with that, but you shouldn't claim that your assumptions are ultimate truth.

Well, you are doing exactly the same thing. You are committed to a philosophic paradigm, one that is also based on certain assumptions. I don't think either of us are claiming ultimate truth, just that our way of looking at the world is the best approximation of truth that we have at this time.

How do you define the opposite of relativism? If relativism states that observers stand in some kind of relation to the world, and that this can differ between observers such that seemingly contradictory statements about the world can both be true. The opposite of relativism is some form of exclusivity of viewpoint claim, wherein you say that there is only one perspective on the world which gives real truth(usually empiricism), and that all other perspectives are false.

I'd say that's accurate. I'd also say I am an empiricist, inside the bounds of the knowable. That is, if something is verifiable, and your perspective differs from what has been verified to be accurate, that perspective is false. (E.g. if you don't think that pi is equal to the ratio of a circles circumference to it's radius, that perspective is false) For things that are unverifiable though, I don't think empiricism works anymore. I don't know what would be the opposite of relativism when you get into morals and ethics, but in my opinion, morals and ethics should not be relative. Relativism, when applied to morals, can be used to justify things like genocide, because the viewpoint that a certain group of people should be dead is just as valid as any other viewpoint. Unless I'm missing something important about relativism.

Finally, remember when I was explaning earlier about how the scientific method worked? Well here's a much better explanation than what I could give at the time:

"Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role[7]. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified or verified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory[8]." -Wikipedia

This works the same way in hypothesis testing, you cannot prove the positive, you can only prove the negative. I can never prove that you are God, but with a good and rigorous experimental design, I could prove that you are not God.

[fexfighter]

you guys are annoying, not that you dont provide interesting topics but you post these huge pointless posts cramed with facts that no one cares about.

[Ragefur]

I care about what was in his post. :)
Therefore it's not the case that NOBODY cares.

Assumptions are beliefs. Beliefs are any proposition which you have a dispositional state to claim as true.

Well, actually the visible universe, while very large, is not infinite. It has an edge, so therefore must have a center, one that is not relative to the observer. The rest is true though.

But it currently impossible to observe the edge of the universe, so empirically it has no edge. And if we do find the center it will not be the sun or the earth, but some other point. It will still not make much sense to speak about the entire universe revolving around the center...

Planck's Constant

I once read an article about Planck's constant not fitting with some obscure
experiment or calculation...

Popper's point is usually said to be that unless there is a way that a theory can POTENTIALLY be proven wrong. That means that every truly scientific hypothesis is just one that has yet to be disproved. The trouble with Popper is that if there ever were something which was undoubtable(Descarte's Cogito: there is no possible way that if I am thinking that I do not exist) then that is not scientific...

homosexuality
That is not the point. The point is that it is a scientific observation that only began to occur after there was a shift in social values.

[Gen. Volkov]

That is not the point. The point is that it is a scientific observation that only began to occur after there was a shift in social values.

Oh alright fine, there was a paradigm shift about homosexuality. However, I'm sure these behaviors were known about by the scientific community, or at least the scientists studying these animals. The difference is that now it is widely reported in the media, and perhaps more widely reported among scientists. We've known for long time, for example, that bonobos are among the most sexual animals on the planet, and will have sex for just about any reason, at any time.

Assumptions are beliefs. Beliefs are any proposition which you have a dispositional state to claim as true.

\

Man, you are annoying. You basically just ignored everything I just said about assumptions. You are also grossly over-simplifying, in my opinion. Both are effective debate tactic, but won't get you any respect from me. So cut it out, and actually respond to what I posted. LOL.

But it currently impossible to observe the edge of the universe, so empirically it has no edge. And if we do find the center it will not be the sun or the earth, but some other point. It will still not make much sense to speak about the entire universe revolving around the center...

No, because the universe doesn't revolve, but it will be expanding from that center point. Yeah, OK, it is currently impossible to see the edge, but that's not the same as not having an edge, is it? It's unverifiable, which you can't talk about empirically. Or at least scientifically, because you can't prove that it has edge, but you also can't prove that it doesn't have an edge. Through direct observation anyway. You can deduce an edge exists from observations and the expansion of the universe though.

I once read an article about Planck's constant not fitting with some obscure
experiment or calculation...

Really? Can you find it and post it? That would be news to me.

Popper's point is usually said to be that unless there is a way that a theory can POTENTIALLY be proven wrong. That means that every truly scientific hypothesis is just one that has yet to be disproved. The trouble with Popper is that if there ever were something which was undoubtable(Descarte's Cogito: there is no possible way that if I am thinking that I do not exist) then that is not scientific...

I dunno, I think one can cast doubt on "Cogito ergo sum". Are we truly sure that we think? Or more specifically, am I sure that I am not just a highly complicated organic machine that simulates thought?

you guys are annoying, not that you dont provide interesting topics but you post these huge pointless posts cramed with facts that no one cares about.

A. There is nothing wrong with facts.
B. I care about what Ragey is saying, therefore it it not true that no one cares. What you are actually saying is that you don't care. In which case, you can butt out.
C. Every single one of my and Ragey's posts have had definite points.
D. It's my opinion that you are annoying fex.

[fexfighter]

you miss my meaning i meant that you could have put that into a smaller version of its original while still conveying the meaning, without taking up half the page with posts copied from wikipidia

[Gorak]

I think they got your meaning perfectly fine Fex

[Ragefur]

Assumptions are not known to be true, only thought to be. It is inherently weaker than a belief, you are correct about that.

I got mixed up with trying to make sure we are on the same page with regards to definitions... Earlier you based your knowledge of the real world on assumptions because you were uncomfortable with basing knowledge on beliefs.

It's an acceptance of the real world, where nothing is completely absolute. There's a tiny tiny chance that I all the atoms in my body will spontaneously cease to exist, but I don't worry about it, because the chance that it will happen is so infinitesimal. It's an assumption. You tell me, is an assumption the same as a belief? I don't think it is.

If beliefs are not a stable enough foundation to base knowledge on, then how can assumptions - which are weaker than beliefs - be? If empiricism is based on assumptions I fail to see how that is better than basing it on a belief.

The Edge Of The Universe
Empirically however we observe ourselves at the center of the universe, because we can see the same distance in all directions... This is why it makes sense to say sunrise, and sunset.
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.html

Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are different MODELS of the solar system, neither one is a fact... Geocentrism is just computationally more complicated.

Are we truly sure that we think? Or more specifically, am I sure that I am not just a highly complicated organic machine that simulates thought?

But there is no way to disprove the cogito. No scientific test that could be devised.

[fexfighter]

really, do any of you have an exact mind as me    i didn't think so

[Ragefur]

So...

What you're saying is that you are bad at writing what you mean so that the meaning can be conveyed to other people?

[Shadow]

really, do any of you have an exact mind as me    i didn't think so

Fex, they get it, you think their debate is pointless. Now that your pointless point is made, please stop wasting space.