OK... Rather missing the point with that little rant, aren't you.Deshara said:CrystalShadow said:Yes... I've gone over part of this in another post because I realised there was something slightly faulty with the statements I was making.Deshara said:CrystalShadow said:snipDeshara said:Fun fact: If something is undisproveable, it's automatically not even considered to be a scientific hypothesis. Why waste time trying to disprove a system of beleifs that's designed (through natural selection, ironically) to be undisproveable?theheroofaction said:Yeah, I've found out one thing.
Neither creation nor lack of creation is physically possible, you'll just have to wait and see.
Well, if the rules suddenly started changing arbitrarily, we'd notice.
Nonetheless, irrespective of if we'd notice it or not, that doesn't strictly change whether or not science (or any other philosophical system) rests on any unsupported assumptions.
Just because it's reasonable and obvious, doesn't stop something being an assumption, after all.
(Then again, when you go down that road you realise that everything anyone has ever come up with rests on arbitrary, unprovable foundations if looked at closely enough. - In practice, actually looking at anything that closely is rather pointless... But as a principle it doesn't seem possible to avoid it.)
So you're saying that the theory of gravity is based on unrpovable foundations? Cause, if you give me your address and help me spot a nice, good cliff to throw you off of, I can help prove a point for you.
We don't assume that the rules don't change, because there are no "rules". What science is is trying to get data that remains consistant with reality. They then publish their findings so that anybody who wishes can attempt to recreate their findings, and if anybody manages to produce other, contradicting results, they have proven that form of the theory wrong. It's a system that's incredibly good at figuring out what isn't true, as long as you're willing to ignore the projectile vomit spewed out by those who're butthurt from the discovery that their parents ignorant, mis-informed beleifs were wrong this whole time and that they'll now have to actually take a moment to think for once in their life.
Throwing me off a cliff won't fundamentally answer whether gravity, as science tends to describe it is actually an accurate reflection of anything at all.
No amount of data will tell you if the pattern you think you're seeing is actually there or not. Yet you cannot do anything useful with any of this unless you assume that this pattern actually has some stability to it.
Objectivity can't be proven. The existence of an objectively true and independent reality can't be proven. Your statements rest on far more arbitrary assumptions than you'd like to think.
But as you say, science is a good system for figuring out what isn't true. Unfortunately, it is next to useless for figuring out what is true.
Thus, to some extent while it removes a lot of ignorance, it seems to cultivate a different kind of ignorance in those that follow it without giving any thought to how or why it works.
But then, as you seem hell-bent on arguing that I'm being ignorant for claiming science can ever possibly have any aspects whatsoever (however slight) to it that are equally as arbitrary as anything any religion has come up with, I'll leave you to your dogmatic belief in the 'one true philosophy of science'.
(And just in case you think I'm some religious zealot, arguing about this for the sake of my 'religion', I should point out that I don't have one. I just find it incredibly baffling how many people argue as dogmatically about science as others would in support of whatever chosen religion they happen to believe in.)