What happened...

[Gen. Volkov]

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

A. We understood you the firs time.
B. We could have, but that wouldn't have fully explained our points.

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.

Yes, I am somewhat uncomfortable with that, though I am more comfortable with calling knowledge "justified true beliefs". I think I've been a bit schizophrenic about explaining my points. Unusual for me. But like I said, we are straying away from areas where my knowledge lies, which means feelings and inclinations are making more of an impact on my responses. As for assumptions, I think I posted about the definition I am using for them earlier. In any event, I don't think the whole world boils down to beliefs. The earth is going to be pulling me and everything else toward it at 9.8 m/s^2 whether I believe it does or not.

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.

Alright, good point. Assumptions can be justified, as can beliefs, though when beliefs are justified, it's called knowledge.

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.

Alright, fine, from the point of view of the observer, due to the immense size of the universe, we observe as if we are at the center of the universe. However, that only remains true until we can see the edge of the universe, and thus empirically verify where we are in relation to the two edges.

Empirically though, we are not at the center of the universe, as it can be verified that we orbit the sun, and the sun is at the edge of a galaxy. Empirically though, it's not currently verifiable either way whether our galaxy is at the center of the universe, but we are not at the center of the galaxy.

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

Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is probably the best. Besides, geocentrism for planetary motion isn't just more complicated, the computations just don't work. Heliocentrism is a much better model for the solar system than geocentrism, and corresponds most closely with fact. The facts are, the sun is at the center of the solar system, and planets orbit it. Various moons orbit the planets. There is a lot of data that direct and indirectly confirms this. I really don't need to go into it all, do I?

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

Correct. It's not a scientifically testable idea, which means we cannot prove or disprove it. Thus making the cogito an assumption, or a non-justifiable belief.

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

No, we don't, but we understand your words as you wrote them, and if you meant something different, improve writing so that we can understand more clearly. Now if you don't have anything useful to add, please leave the thread.

[Ragefur]

Fex: Feel free to continue to stay in the thread, the irony of a one sentence post saying essentially "This is pointless" is delicious.

The earth is going to be pulling me and everything else toward it at 9.8 m/s^2 whether I believe it does or not.

Which is again a belief you hold. It is a scientific belief, according to Popper, because to disprove it you could measure something falling faster or slower(everything else being equal). Scientific beliefs can only take the form "In a large percent of cases in the past I have observed that X. I infer that there is therefore a good possibility that in future cases which are similar I will observe X again."

But... it is also the case that even when a scientist DOES observe a result which would falsify a strongly held hypothesis, they do not immediately discard that hypothesis. Anomalous results are usually just ignored. 

I couldn't really find your definition of what an assumption was, only examples. That might just be my bad reading skills though...

Assumptions can be justified

Can you give an example of a justified assumption?

I was under the impression that assumptions were similar to premises in an argument that they are not the sort of thing that you explain or give reasons for - you just assume them.

The Wikipedia link you mentioned before was talking about how in Logic, an assumption is something which is used in a reductio ad-absurdum(RAA) proof, where you assume that the conclusion of an argument is false and then see if you can find some kind of contradiction. This is useful because if it is false that a proposition Q is false, then Q is true...

An RAA proof of modus ponens would look like this(I am trying to show that Q is TRUE, given the premises)

1. If P IS TRUE then Q IS TRUE  PREMISE
2. P IS TRUE               PREMISE
| 3. Q IS FALSE            Assumption for RAA
| 4. P IS FALSE             This follows from 3 and 1 - by a rule called Modus Tollens.   
| 5. P IS FALSE AND P IS TRUE This follows from 2 and 4.
6. Q IS TRUE              3-5 RAA( The assumption has been discharged - that means I can't use it in my proof anymore)

That was a little complicated... But I think you'll be able to get it.

The facts are, the sun is at the center of the solar system, and planets orbit it. Various moons orbit the planets. There is a lot of data that direct and indirectly confirms this. I really don't need to go into it all, do I?

If center means the same thing as orbits, then you are correct. It doesn't though... Center means different things to different people in different situations... Center is an arbitrary point that is picked based on how easy it makes calculations.

Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor actually says "don't multiply entities beyond what is necessary" it just gets misinterpreted to mean "the simplest theory is correct" Which is false. Sometimes simple theories ignore things.

Thus making the cogito an assumption, or a non-justifiable belief.

Justifiable is not the same as scientific though... There are ways to justify things or prove them without needing any observations at all. This is something that happens all the time in physics - some particle or other is predicted by math and then dozens of years later... Think of the Higgs Boson, which is still unobserved.

[Firetooth]

Hehehe
very intresting
Just what does any of this have to do with being "cool"
It's a good arguement, but if you were "cool" you wouldn't have got this obsessed with it
not that ragey isn't cool ;)

[Gen. Volkov]

Which is again a belief you hold. It is a scientific belief, according to Popper, because to disprove it you could measure something falling faster or slower(everything else being equal). Scientific beliefs can only take the form "In a large percent of cases in the past I have observed that X. I infer that there is therefore a good possibility that in future cases which are similar I will observe X again."

Actually no, the belief I have is that an outside world exists. Provided it does, gravity is something that would occur whether I believed it or not. The measured value of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, and is a justified true belief, (though it could still be disproved, it's very very unlikely that it will be) but gravity itself is not.

But... it is also the case that even when a scientist DOES observe a result which would falsify a strongly held hypothesis, they do not immediately discard that hypothesis. Anomalous results are usually just ignored.

No, they aren't. They are followed up. The most interesting ideas and theories have come out of unexpected results that falsified earlier ideas. Such as Hubble's discovery of an expanding universe, which falsified the long held theory that the universe was static and infinite.

I couldn't really find your definition of what an assumption was, only examples. That might just be my bad reading skills though...

OK, here it is again:

"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

In simple terms, an assumption is a supposition that will later be justified via a separate argument.

Can you give an example of a justified assumption?

Geologists had long assumed that older rocks lay beneath younger rocks. This was justified by logical arguments and later verified by radio-dating.

I was under the impression that assumptions were similar to premises in an argument that they are not the sort of thing that you explain or give reasons for - you just assume them.

For the purposes of the one argument, yes that is true. But assumptions themselves can be justified through arguments. They are basically the same as a premise.

That was a little complicated... But I think you'll be able to get it.

Sorry, I don't. Can you say it in plain language?

The Wikipedia link you mentioned before was talking about how in Logic, an assumption is something which is used in a reductio ad-absurdum(RAA) proof, where you assume that the conclusion of an argument is false and then see if you can find some kind of contradiction. This is useful because if it is false that a proposition Q is false, then Q is true...

Ah, I see, so does proving an assumption also apply in a more general sense, or only for those types of proofs?

If center means the same thing as orbits, then you are correct. It doesn't though... Center means different things to different people in different situations... Center is an arbitrary point that is picked based on how easy it makes calculations.

Fine, every planet orbits the sun, thus the sun is the center of gravity in the solar system. Seems like nit-picking to me. Especially since both geo and heliocentrism were talking about what objects the planets are orbiting. In the context of the argument for either one, center means the same thing as center of gravity, or central object that is orbited.

Occam's Razor actually says "don't multiply entities beyond what is necessary" it just gets misinterpreted to mean "the simplest theory is correct" Which is false. Sometimes simple theories ignore things.

It still applies to what we are talking about. You'd need some very heavy modifications to Newton's gravity equations to make the earth the central object in the solar system. Occam's Razor certainly applies.

Justifiable is not the same as scientific though... There are ways to justify things or prove them without needing any observations at all. This is something that happens all the time in physics - some particle or other is predicted by math and then dozens of years later... Think of the Higgs Boson, which is still unobserved.

Actually the Higgs Boson is still only a hypothetical particle, because it hasn't yet been observed. It is predicted, but if it is not found, then the math will be shown to be wrong. So in fact you do need an observation to justify this. I suppose there are ways to justify or prove things without observation, but I still don't think that it's possible to prove that one is actually thinking, either through observation, or any other method.

Hehehe
very intresting
Just what does any of this have to do with being "cool"
It's a good arguement, but if you were "cool" you wouldn't have got this obsessed with it

You can still bugger off Firetooth.

[Firetooth]

Hehehe
very intresting
Just what does any of this have to do with being "cool"
It's a good arguement, but if you were "cool" you wouldn't have got this obsessed with it

You can still bugger off Firetooth.

Why? Why not?
Find me some long arguement as to why I should and I'll consider it :P
otherwise...
get over it

[fexfighter]

ya i win 

And I'm sorry for arguing i was just trying to start a argument were i could win

I will stop now that i accomplished this goal

[Gen. Volkov]

And I'm sorry for arguing i was just trying to start a argument were i could win

What are you talking about?

ya i win

Win what? I wasn't even aware that you were arguing.

Why? Why not?

Because you are adding nothing to the conversation and are in fact spamming.

[Firetooth]

And I'm sorry for arguing i was just trying to start a argument were i could win

What are you talking about?

ya i win

Win what? I wasn't even aware that you were arguing.

Why? Why not?

Because you are adding nothing to the conversation and are in fact spamming.

yes, but this conversation IS spam...
think how much off topic it's gone.
Arguing over who's coolest would be classed under spam considering this topic is about what happened to activity numbers. Coolness has nothing whatsoever do to with this topic.
also, telling me to "bugger off" would be seen as against the rules. It's a pg13 rating volkov, think of fex :P

[fexfighter]

true this topic is way off 

[Gen. Volkov]

yes, but this conversation IS spam...
think how much off topic it's gone.

No it's not, all of Ragey and my posts have been coherent and on point. The point has morphed from the original, but that's just the normal flow of discussion. Spam is interruption a discussion with pronouncements that add nothing to the conversation.

Arguing over who's coolest would be classed under spam considering this topic is about what happened to activity numbers. Coolness has nothing whatsoever do to with this topic.

Well actually now we are arguing philosophical points, but for the rest, see above.

also, telling me to "bugger off" would be seen as against the rules. It's a pg13 rating volkov, think of fex

It's English slang, and thus creative. (OK, not really, but most Americans aren't going to condemn the use of the term "Bugger off", it's much better than the alternative.) LOL. You can insult people, if you do it creatively. You beer swilling son of a swine. LOL.

[Ragefur]

I guess that what happened to the forums is people kept griping that threads went off topic, thereby killing the discussion.

You should always ask yourself a couple of questions before posting in a topic...

1. Does my post deal with points raised by a previous poster. (Does it answer questions posed?)
2. Does my post encourage others to respond to it? (Does it pose questions to be answered?)
3. Is my spelling and grammar as good as or better than the spelling and grammar of previous posters?

Now...

Exactly what topic is a post saying "Your guys posts are off topic" on? It is neither on the topic of the thread, or the topic being discussed. You two fail.

-Ragefur

[windhound]

To reemphasize:

...
The forum -would- be dead if everyone stayed precisely on topic.  I mean.  Who wants to talk about how their forum is dying.  Debating Ragey's godlike qualities is much more fun (and goes towards proving the opposite), but I dont see how a topic dedicated to the subject would ever emerge on its own.  It came about here via evolution.  The topic is not derailed, it sidetracked.
...
[Being offtopic] depends on how far off-base you are and if there was any interest in the original topic still remaining
Its a case-by-case thing and its generally self-regulating.  As in, the offtopic posts are ignored by everyone else wishing to stay on topic.

Unless you're a mod or admin you should not be trying to police the forum anyways.  It aint your job, its mine.
If you see a post that's offtopic make one to drag it back ontopic if you want.  But posting that a post is offtopic is, as Ragey said, fail.

Bugger is an odd word.  The wikipedia sums it up alright though.  The old, proper definition is generally ignored when used today, its just used to denote annoyance... and its been used in a Disney movie.