User Controls
Posts by PhD in Condom Mechanics
-
2018-11-14 at 12:19 PM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service You speak like a politician when you are shown to be wrong. How the fuck did you manage to deflect my very specific observation into a meaningless platitude about the scientific method in general? You and CF are on a similar intellectual level, goddam.
You literally didn't even address his original point u chud -
2018-11-14 at 12:18 PM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
Originally posted by Lanny Not far, although it's a little different. Hypothetico-deductivism kinda cropped up as (or is editorialized to be) a way out of the problem of induction. Hume was right that observing a thing being one way, even many times, is not logically sufficient to suggest that it will be that way in the future. But Hume would seem to agree we can reject hypotheses which make contrary predictions to observed actuals. The deductivists thought (broadly) that since we could deny hypotheses with certainty, and classes of hypotheses are mutually exclusive, we could sort of "exhaust the alternatives" to verify a true hypothesis. But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite.
That's true. To be fair, scientists are usually very open about not being absolutely sure that anything they say is 100% truth: it's usually the default caveat they throw in when they make a statement that isn't deductively "true"; everything is always open for falsification.
I didn't really consider the deductive model as being a way to defeat the problem of induction per se, but rather as a way to live within it and I think most scientists see it the same way.But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite.
This part is interesting. Do you know about Feynman's path integral formulation in QM? -
2018-11-14 at 11:37 AM UTC in What have you eaten today?Nothing so far. Woke up with a twinge in my stomach, which is strange because I ate a fat meal last night.
-
2018-11-14 at 2:17 AM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
Originally posted by Lanny The "raven paradox" is kind of the most fun/quick criticism. Ultimately though you can bite the bullet on that one and still have a tenable theory. The deeper issue is that it simply does not work on a statistical level: failure to falsify does not, on its own, yield any information about the validity of a theory. Sure, we can say it's very likely that a given model is wrong in light of some observed results, but the survival of a model against testing doesn't actually say anything about it being correct, at least not formally. We certainly have the intuition that it does, but mathematically or logically we can't say anything about it.
I'm looking into it a little more and I have to say, I'm not particularly moved by this. If I'm understanding it right, it is essentially the problem of induction being raised again. -
2018-11-14 at 2:01 AM UTC in What have you eaten today?
Originally posted by -SpectraL Haven't eaten in a few hundred years. I can eat, I have the capability, but I don't have to. I find it's a waste of time. I also have solar storage cells (rated for 50+ years of lossless energy) as an emergency backup. The life of a cyborg.
If you were a machine, you'd be a 1950s Singer washer/dryer -
2018-11-14 at 1:59 AM UTC in Infinityshock's BanHell yeah blurry meth
-
2018-11-13 at 11:19 PM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service The introduction of discrete quantisation of energy states and the introduction of mathematical probabilistic randomness as a fundamental principle involved in the operation of the universe were qualitatively new.
Tutorial: How to seem doubly retarded by trying to say something smart. -
2018-11-13 at 11:18 PM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
Originally posted by Lanny You've missed the point. I agree there's nothing qualitatively different in QM from other physical theories. The problem is this statement "Each correct prediction by a theory increases the likelihood of the theory being correct" is not just untrue of QM, but of every scientific theory. Hypothetico deductivism is, frankly, a discredited theory in the philosophy of science.
Interesting, I'm not as well read on the philosophy of science. What's wrong with it and what are better alternatives in your opinion? -
2018-11-13 at 7:45 PM UTC in 97% of all suicidesMonies and honeys
-
2018-11-13 at 7:44 PM UTC in Infinityshock's Ban
-
2018-11-13 at 7:34 PM UTC in Infinityshock's Ban
-
2018-11-13 at 7 PM UTC in should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopherAll of existence is an informational kink in a one dimensional continuum
-
2018-11-13 at 6:59 PM UTC in Lack of strict belief in Naturalism should be turned into a capital offence, with a grace period until 2050This isn't real triangilism, this is a bankrupt proto-philosophy. I am going to retreat to the mountaintop and return with a manuscript for mankind's destiny.
-
2018-11-13 at 6:38 PM UTC in Everyone on this forum is fake as fuck
-
2018-11-13 at 5:29 PM UTC in Everyone on this forum is fake as fuck
-
2018-11-13 at 5:01 PM UTC in Infinityshock's BanAlso lame jediigi-tier memes
-
2018-11-13 at 5:01 PM UTC in Infinityshock's Ban
-
2018-11-13 at 4:46 PM UTC in Infinityshock's BanThis thread is one big, subpar attempt to jebait the admin and you all probably enjoy watching other men gorilla fuck your wife/girlfriend.
-
2018-11-13 at 3:31 PM UTC in Everyone on this forum is fake as fuckPeople's "fakeness", their need to front, is an important part of their personality.
-
2018-11-13 at 3:22 PM UTC in New KeycapsNeed that kerCHUNK kerCHUNK
