@Suzianne saidHow would you know if the error hasn't been identified? In the scope of things we call facts if those are based upon assumptions, and a lot of them, do we run the risk of being in error with no way to know if it is not falsifiable?
Errors in validation do not uphold under scrutiny.
Errors are soon corrected. Assumptions don't really work in science. Assumptive experimentation literally does not exist (or should not exist). This is another reason for peer review.
This is still not the main question, which again can we know anything outside of science can tell us? We can test and measure the material world, and draw many a conclusion, but not everything in this universe is part of the material world.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121963
@KellyJay saidHe didn’t say it has “No qualities”, he said it “HAS qualities”.
How can you say it has no qualities if we cannot quantify it, is it there, and if so we know how? The immaterial world is just as much a part of the universe as the material isn't it?
It seems that as well as clinging to your jejune habit of not engaging with some people because you err … don’t like what they say… you are also not even carefully reading the replies of the people whom you are engaging with.
Furthermore, your OP is an unsubstantiated strawman; you provide no examples, no frame of reference; mearly another waft of KellyJayism and yet another attempt to devolve the topic to your favourite riff, “mindlessness”.
@KellyJay
How can you say it has no [sic] qualities if we cannot quantify it, is it there, and if so we know how? The immaterial world is just as much a part of the universe as the material isn't it?
Of course there are immaterial and intangible 'things.' They are all around us, every day: love, beauty, justice, friendship, commitment, responsibility, negligence, the joy of a child's first taste of maple syrup on a waffle, the rules of chess, the elegance of an endgame by Rubinstein. How do we know that such things exist? I suppose, primarily, by first-hand experience. But many such things we know by having heard or read about them, and we assume that the sources are reliable; I know that Gabon exists, although I have never been there; I know that Ford Motor Company exists, although I have never owned a Ford; I know that the Roman Empire existed, though it fell and dissipated centuries ago. It would be bizarre to claim that we do not know such things, but merely opine or believe them.
It would also be bizarre to claim that such things and such knowledge are necessarily quantifiable. Certainly some people may try to quantify such things as beauty, for example by ranking contestants in a beauty pageant, but this is very artificial and fit only for the purpose of awarding a prize at the end; beauty as such is a non-quantifiable intangible quality. Similarly, a court or a jury may award a claimant 83 million dollars for having been defamed, but a person's reputation as such is a non-quantifiable intangible quality. I suppose someone could quantify the sweetness of maple syrup (perhaps by measuring the sugar content compared to honey or molasses or strawberry jam), but that still does not come close to registering the special quality of its taste or the quality of a child's joy upon first tasting it. It would be bizarre to say one could quantify the existence of the Roman Empire. Of course, one could quantify its greatest extent or its gross national product or how many centuries it lasted, but that is not to quantify the empire's existence as such or what it meant to be a Roman citizen and to enjoy certain benefits and rights and privileges. One can quantify how many moves Rubinstein needed to defeat Lasker, but the elegance of how he did it is a non-quantifiable intangible quality.
@KellyJay saidErrors are caught, and are not "assumptions", which was my whole point. Science (real science, not whatever you are talking about) has no room for that.
How would you know if the error hasn't been identified? In the scope of things we call facts if those are based upon assumptions, and a lot of them, do we run the risk of being in error with no way to know if it is not falsifiable?
This is still not the main question, which again can we know anything outside of science can tell us? We can test and measure the material world, and draw many a conclusion, but not everything in this universe is part of the material world.
Why are you still rambling on as if what you say is true?
Science is concerned with the material world. Whatever's not part of that is the realm of religion. Add in all the 'intangibles' moonbus is talking about.
And that is the main reason why a separation of church and state is crucial moving forward. Despite federal laws, there is a group in the midwest, called 'Lifewise Academy', that is forcing states (through lobbying for ill-advised state laws) to put religion (Christianity ONLY) into public schools. They are busy siphoning off public education dollars with this horrible idea The religious right is pushing programs like this as part of their "parental rights" push nationwide (part of the MAGA movement, I reckon), The backlash from this, once more people see exactly what is going on, is going to ruin Christianity in America (if it's not already ruined by the mega-churches).
@moonbus saidGood points throughout. Well-written.
@KellyJay
How can you say it has no [sic] qualities if we cannot quantify it, is it there, and if so we know how? The immaterial world is just as much a part of the universe as the material isn't it?
Of course there are immaterial and intangible 'things.' They are all around us, every day: love, beauty, justice, friendship, commitment, responsibility, neglige ...[text shortened]... needed to defeat Lasker, but the elegance of how he did it is a non-quantifiable intangible quality.
@divegeester saidI take exception to his entire argument concerning 'mindlessness'. I rankle at the very word, since he uses it to bad-mouth everything not in his 'religious viewpoint'.
Furthermore, your OP is an unsubstantiated strawman; you provide no examples, no frame of reference; mearly another waft of KellyJayism and yet another attempt to devolve the topic to your favourite riff, “mindlessness”.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121963
@Suzianne saidSame here.
I take exception to his entire argument concerning 'mindlessness'. I rankle at the very word, since he uses it to bad-mouth everything not in his 'religious viewpoint'.
Of course my disagreeing with him means he want talk to me.
One thing I can say you have never done Suzianne.
@divegeester saidI spent my entire childhood arguing with my mother. We would get off on the most mundane subjects and argue our points and that tended to drive my father crazy, all the arguing. When he would ask us to knock it off for a while because he couldn't take it anymore, my mother and I would pull out the chessboard and play a few games. It was something we could do in silence while my father listened to classical music or jazz in the other room after dinner.
Same here.
Of course my disagreeing with him means he want talk to me.
One thing I can say you have never done Suzianne.
It was probably inevitable I would end up here. 😀
@Suzianne saidThey say it's a cold cruel world, but it's nothing compared to the warm cruelty of the family.
I spent my entire childhood arguing with my mother. We would get off on the most mundane subjects and argue our points and that tended to drive my father crazy, all the arguing. When he would ask us to knock it off for a while because he couldn't take it anymore, my mother and I would pull out the chessboard and play a few games. It was something we could do in silence wh ...[text shortened]... music or jazz in the other room after dinner.
It was probably inevitable I would end up here. 😀
This is one of the most inspiring pieces of devotional music ever composed (the helium kid is angelic).
@moonbus saidAnd what a great venue. The acoustics sound great.
They say it's a cold cruel world, but it's nothing compared to the warm cruelty of the family.
This is one of the most inspiring pieces of devotional music ever composed (the helium kid is angelic).
[youtube]IX1zicNRLmY[/youtube]
@moonbus saidWhich in your opinion came first the immaterial or the material? We know science really can’t explain so well the immaterial can science be used to explain the answer?
@KellyJay
How can you say it has no [sic] qualities if we cannot quantify it, is it there, and if so we know how? The immaterial world is just as much a part of the universe as the material isn't it?
Of course there are immaterial and intangible 'things.' They are all around us, every day: love, beauty, justice, friendship, commitment, responsibility, neglige ...[text shortened]... needed to defeat Lasker, but the elegance of how he did it is a non-quantifiable intangible quality.
@Suzianne saidError can be undetected and totally go unnoticed ruining what we think we know due to our bad assumptions. You can setup an experiment and not realize your setup isn’t perfect or in your setup of the experiment variables are added or left off that were required. A tool may not be properly calibrated, an offset maybe in error, and your math is spot on so you think your calculations are correct. Science is built on changing parameters because it has to be, thus says the Lord gold standard only applies to God.
Errors are caught, and are not "assumptions", which was my whole point. Science (real science, not whatever you are talking about) has no room for that.
Why are you still rambling on as if what you say is true?
Science is concerned with the material world. Whatever's not part of that is the realm of religion. Add in all the 'intangibles' moonbus is talking ab ...[text shortened]... oing on, is going to ruin Christianity in America (if it's not already ruined by the mega-churches).