Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (366073)	3/4/2003 2:19:44 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re my Q: You talk of 'common sense' approaches, and 'the old scientific method'... can you define? And your 'answer': "the Refutation of Bishop Berkeley...' >>> Er, I NEVER claimed 'the nonexistence of matter'... you are not arguing with anything I ever said here! Q - More specifically: how do you decide what is 'natural', if you don't believe in the value of the observational method? A - I never said I do not value observation. I do not value your religion, wherein things that do not actually exist are said to exist. >>> What blinking 'religion'? And I never argued for 'things that don't actually exist'! >>> I argued for observation - the common scientific method of testing and re-testing - to experimentally prove theories. Surely you understand the difference? If it can't be proven experimentally, empirically... then it remains in the realm of theory. Q - And don't tell me 'it just seems natural'... because that is mere intuition and personal bias A - Please… You employ bias when you claim “actions” become “behaviors” once they are ‘mainstreamed’ or become ‘staples’ or are some other mushy-headed religious verbiage. >>> Sorry, you are wrong. I simply utilized a simple dictionary explanation for 'behavior'. Take it up with Websters. A - If the thing exists in nature, then you will be able to detect it by observing its behavior on other natural things (unless you are just plain ignorant). >>> Of course. A - You cannot do that with behaviors themselves. >>> Of COURSE you can. Behavior can be observed. I gave many examples. A - Behaviors are not original in nature that they should have behaviors that you might judge to discover them in nature. With behaviors it’s the other friggin’ way around. They do not themselves exist in nature such that we can determine their existence by their effect on nature. They are the expressions of things that actually DO exist. Even should we see some sort of nameless behavior or amorphous force having an impact on a natural object, our being in nature DEMANDS that we then seek the natural thing responsible for the behavior (this is why you cannot know God, btw). So then if you wish to find what is natural, find that which literally and physically exists with you. Things that have no physical existence are but expressions of nature – or they are religious. >>> Sounds like you are boiling alive in sophistries. >>> Behaviors are as 'real' as anything else... and may be observed. Q - although I've got nothing against intuition - the scientific method relies upon testing, and repeated observation, and repeatability of results, peer review. A - Yeah riiight. It is a big political fantasy wherein scientific priests argue and then vote on their opinions, and where the winners make declarations in expectation that mere mortals will begin genuflecting before them. >>> Oh! I finally understand what you are saying! You think science is a religion. >>> My friend, you are sadly mistaken. >>> Science (by it's nature) can only deal with the natural world: that which is testable, observable. >>> Science cannot deal with the supernatural world: that is the province of religion (which relies upon faith, not verifiable testing). >>> Two very different things... and just because you refuse to see it, doesn't make it any less so. Science does not rely upon faith... it does not address the supernatural, only the natural.