0
   

My present feelings are the sole reality!

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:42 am
I have wanted to start a thread dedicated to this topic for several months but the difficulty to verbalise my thought did not allow me to do that. Now it seems as if the time has come. Frankly speaking I don't know how to start, so let it be this:
Every knowledge we get, we get through our senses. I know that book is red because I perceive it as such, I know that water is called because I perceive that as such and so on.
But it seems that we claim that we know not only these simple things that red is red, this water is this water and so on. We claim that we know a certain reality which is beyond that. We call that causality. How does it come into being? We see that a certain actions are often followed by another certain actions and so it happens every time in our life. So we call the first "causes" and the last "effects" and we start believing that it is reality that one thing gives birth to another. It is very important to notice that this is BELIEF which has nothing to do with reality. Reality is always certain, I see what I see, and that's how it really is, I cannot mistake in it. Causality is an idea which is always liable to reconsideration. (Aristotle noticed that stones are falling faster than feathers and said that bodies with bigger mass are falling faster, according to modern conceptions it is wrong. But who said that tomorrow there won't come someone and say that all what we think of "natural laws" is wrong?) Science and religion has very much in common, I should even say they have the same basis -- belief that there is reality beyond what we see -- the difference lies only in method of getting truth. The idea that there is God is just as well wrong (or true) as the idea that atoms exist. No, I have to appologise, science doesn't believe that, it just takes that as a working hypothesis for reaching pragmatic goals, it is so-called science based philosophy or materialism that believe in that.
Time is also a joke. We notice that within our mind (let us call that so) there are some things called memories. We think that we were little, then started going to school, working etc. (Buddhism even created the idea of anatman, the absence of soul on the grounds that everything changes and so do we.) In reality there is only memory and the now, there is no time. Time seems to be a chain of memories and nothing more.
So in the light of everything said before, I think we should look upon the world as it is, and upon us as we are, without trying to align everything with made up theories.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,383 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 12:47 pm
@Eudaimon,
Quote:
we should look upon the world as it is


But "the world as it is" is also "a theory" in the sense that we as observers with particular physiologies and needs, segment such a world into categories relevant to ourselves most of which have been acquired through socialization and embodied in that process we call "thought.
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:57 pm
It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

And, in a sense, doesn't our use of language imply, perhaps hidden in it lexicon and structure, a kind of theoretical underpinning holding it together and making it meaningful? We vote, we stop at red octagonal signs, we go to work; isn't there, lurking in the shadows, theoretical layers that we both understand and accept?
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 12:28 am
@jgweed,
jgweed wrote:

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

I don't argue that it has a certain sense to use causality for making our decisions. After all, if all ways are equal, why shouldn't we prefer follow the "causal" one?
The point is that we usually forget that what we feel is the only reality and everything else has practical meaning only. It is not uncommon to see how people start to think that everything consist of atoms, that light is an electromagnetic wave etc. And none of these theories represent reality.
It becomes much more dramatic when it comes to psychology and ethics. We start calling ourselves animals or whatever because we notice some things which we seem to have in common and out of this we derive our morality our behaviour. To live in the here and now means to give up all those theories, to stop posing what is secondary (theory) over what is primary (feeling), that is don't do what we feel is wrong, do what we feel is right without taking in account those made up theories like religion or evolution theory or whatever. It maybe called following ones heart.

Fresco -- Language surely is based on certain logic, division, simplification, abstraction. I have seen here the signature of a member where it is said that with the language made for seeking for a ripe fruit we try to understand all the complexities of creation. The benefit we can get from it apart from practical use is that we can understand how limited it is and give it up.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:48 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:

I have wanted to start a thread dedicated to this topic for several months but the difficulty to verbalise my thought did not allow me to do that. Now it seems as if the time has come. Frankly speaking I don't know how to start, so let it be this:
Every knowledge we get, we get through our senses. I know that book is red because I perceive it as such, I know that water is called because I perceive that as such and so on.
But it seems that we claim that we know not only these simple things that red is red, this water is this water and so on. We claim that we know a certain reality which is beyond that. We call that causality. How does it come into being? We see that a certain actions are often followed by another certain actions and so it happens every time in our life. So we call the first "causes" and the last "effects" and we start believing that it is reality that one thing gives birth to another. It is very important to notice that this is BELIEF which has nothing to do with reality. Reality is always certain, I see what I see, and that's how it really is, I cannot mistake in it. Causality is an idea which is always liable to reconsideration. (Aristotle noticed that stones are falling faster than feathers and said that bodies with bigger mass are falling faster, according to modern conceptions it is wrong. But who said that tomorrow there won't come someone and say that all what we think of "natural laws" is wrong?) Science and religion has very much in common, I should even say they have the same basis -- belief that there is reality beyond what we see -- the difference lies only in method of getting truth. The idea that there is God is just as well wrong (or true) as the idea that atoms exist. No, I have to appologise, science doesn't believe that, it just takes that as a working hypothesis for reaching pragmatic goals, it is so-called science based philosophy or materialism that believe in that.
Time is also a joke. We notice that within our mind (let us call that so) there are some things called memories. We think that we were little, then started going to school, working etc. (Buddhism even created the idea of anatman, the absence of soul on the grounds that everything changes and so do we.) In reality there is only memory and the now, there is no time. Time seems to be a chain of memories and nothing more.
So in the light of everything said before, I think we should look upon the world as it is, and upon us as we are, without trying to align everything with made up theories.


Where do I begin...

I can agree with you on this and solely this premiss: that all knowledge begins with experience. From here we grossly differ.

1. Perception is not sensuous: it is intelligent. That what I see and touch affect the senes of my body is a matter for the Understanding, that is, the faculty which deals with representation. Seeing can be described as sensuous, insofar as the object present affects my body (my eyes in particular) in a certain fashion so as to make my body react in a certain way. Perception deals with the representation of the object proceeding into the understanding, where it no longer becomes simply sensuous.

2. Casuality never has anything to do with science itself; it is a tool used by the scientist to understand the phenomena around him. When a man observes the world, he sees that the world acts in a certain fashion; that the representations of objects (if we are still following from my explanation of perception and seeing) rise and fall through our perception of the world. When we see such events, we ask "why?" and further investigate. We immediately look for the cause of a certain effect to better explain the event. For example: say you see a blind open up unexpectedly. You are startled and try to find the source from which the blind was open. This source (the cause) is the origin to the effect. If we really wanted to we could go even further than this. Say we find that the cause of the blind opening suddenly was a man, we may ask "how did that get there?", and we can continue on ad infinitum through all the causes and effects. In essence, causality is not directly related to science. Just because scientists get certain things wrong does not prove causality to be a mere farce; it just means that we made an error in our assertion that this certain effect was caused by x,y, or z. But causality always remains. We always ask "why"?

3. Following from casuality, we proceed into time (ans also space, but since you did not object to space existing, I will not really bother to mention it). Time works as such: that when we try to find a cause from an effect, we try and track back the succession of different states to which representations occured, and thus reach our sufficient cause. Since time involves succession only, we can conclude that time actually does exist, but it is dependent upon causality and space. If time did not exist, causality sure as hell could not exist as well.

4. Keep in mind that the objects percieved are not of the things themselves, but of the mere representation of the objects.

Finis
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:05 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Hi, DaS, thanks a lot thy reply.
Ding an Sich wrote:

1. Perception is not sensuous: it is intelligent. That what I see and touch affect the senes of my body is a matter for the Understanding, that is, the faculty which deals with representation. Seeing can be described as sensuous, insofar as the object present affects my body (my eyes in particular) in a certain fashion so as to make my body react in a certain way. Perception deals with the representation of the object proceeding into the understanding, where it no longer becomes simply sensuous.


Perhaps my usage of the word 'perception' was incorrect if it necessarily implies interference of mind or understanding as thou callst that. When we get those images/representation (if I understand thee aright) mind starts process them trying to identify them with what it has in memory (conceptions). Even the phrase: 'this is water' demands a certain time during which the thing referred cease to exist, thus our identification refers not to what we perceive now, but to the "past"! If this is right, everything we do is but playing with memories. It seems that mind never deals with what is, it deals only with itself.

Ding an Sich wrote:

2. Casuality never has anything to do with science itself; it is a tool used by the scientist to understand the phenomena around him. When a man observes the world, he sees that the world acts in a certain fashion; that the representations of objects (if we are still following from my explanation of perception and seeing) rise and fall through our perception of the world. When we see such events, we ask "why?" and further investigate. We immediately look for the cause of a certain effect to better explain the event. For example: say you see a blind open up unexpectedly. You are startled and try to find the source from which the blind was open. This source (the cause) is the origin to the effect. If we really wanted to we could go even further than this. Say we find that the cause of the blind opening suddenly was a man, we may ask "how did that get there?", and we can continue on ad infinitum through all the causes and effects. In essence, causality is not directly related to science. Just because scientists get certain things wrong does not prove causality to be a mere farce; it just means that we made an error in our assertion that this certain effect was caused by x,y, or z. But causality always remains. We always ask "why"?

Is that a proof for causality? I mean, is our ability to ask the question proves the existence of causality? Perhaps I don't understand something...

Ding an Sich wrote:
4. Keep in mind that the objects percieved are not of the things themselves, but of the mere representation of the objects.

I don't understand that. What does it mean "not of the things themselves"? How can we imply something beyond representation, i. e. so called object (as opposed to representation)?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 01:48 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:

I have wanted to start a thread dedicated to this topic for several months but the difficulty to verbalise my thought did not allow me to do that. Now it seems as if the time has come. Frankly speaking I don't know how to start, so let it be this:
Every knowledge we get, we get through our senses. I know that book is red because I perceive it as such, I know that water is called because I perceive that as such and so on.
But it seems that we claim that we know not only these simple things that red is red, this water is this water and so on. We claim that we know a certain reality which is beyond that. We call that causality. How does it come into being? We see that a certain actions are often followed by another certain actions and so it happens every time in our life. So we call the first "causes" and the last "effects" and we start believing that it is reality that one thing gives birth to another. It is very important to notice that this is BELIEF which has nothing to do with reality. Reality is always certain, I see what I see, and that's how it really is, I cannot mistake in it. Causality is an idea which is always liable to reconsideration. (Aristotle noticed that stones are falling faster than feathers and said that bodies with bigger mass are falling faster, according to modern conceptions it is wrong. But who said that tomorrow there won't come someone and say that all what we think of "natural laws" is wrong?) Science and religion has very much in common, I should even say they have the same basis -- belief that there is reality beyond what we see -- the difference lies only in method of getting truth. The idea that there is God is just as well wrong (or true) as the idea that atoms exist. No, I have to appologise, science doesn't believe that, it just takes that as a working hypothesis for reaching pragmatic goals, it is so-called science based philosophy or materialism that believe in that.
Time is also a joke. We notice that within our mind (let us call that so) there are some things called memories. We think that we were little, then started going to school, working etc. (Buddhism even created the idea of anatman, the absence of soul on the grounds that everything changes and so do we.) In reality there is only memory and the now, there is no time. Time seems to be a chain of memories and nothing more.
So in the light of everything said before, I think we should look upon the world as it is, and upon us as we are, without trying to align everything with made up theories.


As Wittgenstein wrote (addressing the Solipsist who said something like that) "Aren't you ashamed to say that?"
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:02 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed wrote:

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

And, in a sense, doesn't our use of language imply, perhaps hidden in it lexicon and structure, a kind of theoretical underpinning holding it together and making it meaningful? We vote, we stop at red octagonal signs, we go to work; isn't there, lurking in the shadows, theoretical layers that we both understand and accept?



I simply love that phrase, "is only a theory". What does the "only" in that sentence mean? Of course, the theory of gravity is a theory, and so is germ theory a theory. But neither one of them is only a theory. To say that there is such a thing as molecular theory is, of course, true. But to say of it that it is only a theory is blatantly false. To say of a theory that it is only a theory is to say of it that it is a mere speculation, which little or no evidence to support it. But is that true of the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs? Absolutely not! There is a mass of evidence to support the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs. And, in fact, both theories, as well as atomic theory, Snell's theory of refraction, and a host of other well-established theories of science are well-established enough to be properly be said to be facts. Something can be a theory, and also a fact when the theory becomes well-established by evidence. So what does it mean to say that causality is "only a theory"? That we don't know that lowering the temperature of water to freezing causes water to turn to ice? Of course we know that. As well as we know our own names, or that planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits. Causality is a theory. But not only a theory. It is a fact.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 02:15 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I am all afeared you have it wrong... We do perceive with our minds, and yet the mind is a terrible vehicle of perception, and it often channels perception culturally and personally so that we are blinded to the actual experience of life in the act of living it...

Consider for example what Aristippus may have said: that the good is the pleasurable, and compare that to people who endure physical trauma and great stress to have employment because good lies beyond the pain in some other place, home, with family, with friends, with money.... Can such pleasures ever really compensate for the injury we have done to us that we can only stand mixed with resentment??? If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity... The cultural predicate keeps us from our true purpose of having lives we can experience every moment of... Instead we must settle for lives that we inevitably wish away from end to end... This is the action of intelligence, not to achieve freedom, but the endurance of insanity, cruelty, and slavery.... We need lives we can live in the moment, not taken from others, but out of our own hand, to be able to say I, I, I.... I bought my leisure with my courage and my labor... I negated myself to have myself and Now I have myself, my life, my, My, MY, now, Now, NOW....

Let me tell you what intelligence does... When one cannot enjoy his life except by robbing others of their enjoyment, and when one cannot have meaning except by demeaning all, that is intelligence at work, because it sees all things in ratio... Less for you means more for me, and more for you means less for me... Reason, and intelligence sees the distant goal and the way there... The way there is not over so many dead bodies and ruined lives.... The way there is our lives, and it is all we will ever have, every moment of which should be enjoyed or at least tolerable.... Human being have shown they can endure any difficulty to reach their goal... What they should never endure is human suffering inflicted by others simple to do so, to make their own pain seem relatively less...
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

jgweed wrote:

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

And, in a sense, doesn't our use of language imply, perhaps hidden in it lexicon and structure, a kind of theoretical underpinning holding it together and making it meaningful? We vote, we stop at red octagonal signs, we go to work; isn't there, lurking in the shadows, theoretical layers that we both understand and accept?



I simply love that phrase, "is only a theory". What does the "only" in that sentence mean? Of course, the theory of gravity is a theory, and so is germ theory a theory. But neither one of them is only a theory. To say that there is such a thing as molecular theory is, of course, true. But to say of it that it is only a theory is blatantly false. To say of a theory that it is only a theory is to say of it that it is a mere speculation, which little or no evidence to support it. But is that true of the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs? Absolutely not! There is a mass of evidence to support the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs. And, in fact, both theories, as well as atomic theory, Snell's theory of refraction, and a host of other well-established theories of science are well-established enough to be properly be said to be facts. Something can be a theory, and also a fact when the theory becomes well-established by evidence. So what does it mean to say that causality is "only a theory"? That we don't know that lowering the temperature of water to freezing causes water to turn to ice? Of course we know that. As well as we know our own names, or that planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits. Causality is a theory. But not only a theory. It is a fact.


Ken if I could thank your post I would. Immediately.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 08:49 pm
@Ding an Sich,
I know it is a small point, but water temperatures must be lowered beyond the freezing point... Nothing happens at 32 degrees farenheit... One must go below for freezing or above for thawing... Under pressure the freezing point is lower and the melting point is higher...

I f I were you I would argue for a reliable theory as oppossed to no theory, or pure speculation.... Does that mean our theory is some how the end??? The fact is that so long as we frame our theories as laws of nature we blind ourselves.... They are our laws founded on our theories that we think are natures laws...We do not have to defend the theory, and the theory ought to stand alone even though no amount of proof is suficient to prove it... It works and it works and it works, and as long as that is the case the theory is good.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:46 pm
@Fido,
Ken --- We can never know any theory to be true. What is the criterion? That following it, we get a predicted result? Who on Earth told you that you've got it following YOUR theory (I wonder why should I recall the Aristotle example again), who told you that YOUR actions caused that, who told you that it has causes at all?

Fido wrote:

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

See, this also only a theory. What will happen when we are open to the world no one can know.
Thanks for thy contibution, Fido.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 05:00 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:

Ken --- We can never know any theory to be true. What is the criterion? That following it, we get a predicted result? Who on Earth told you that you've got it following YOUR theory (I wonder why should I recall the Aristotle example again), who told you that YOUR actions caused that, who told you that it has causes at all?

Fido wrote:

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

See, this also only a theory. What will happen when we are open to the world no one can know.
Thanks for thy contibution, Fido.
You are right about not knowing... We are inclined to accept injustice as a byproduct of our social forms.... If you can believe the answer to the question supposedly posed to Socrates you may get my point... Asked when there would be justice in Athens he said: When those not injured by injustice are as indignant as those who are...

If we live in the moment we cannot deny a certain indgnance over the mis-management of our affairs and resources, which is nothing but criminal... And when the government not only protects criminals but takes part in the crime we should be indignant... The reason we cannot be so is that living for tomorrow, living in hope, living with failed forms that are the only forms we have leaves us powerless and twisting in the wind.... People cannot dare ask themselves: How am I feeling right now... Their fear of the consequences of such thought, that they must then act makes them slaves...
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 06:46 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:

Ken --- We can never know any theory to be true. What is the criterion? That following it, we get a predicted result? Who on Earth told you that you've got it following YOUR theory (I wonder why should I recall the Aristotle example again), who told you that YOUR actions caused that, who told you that it has causes at all?

Fido wrote:

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

See, this also only a theory. What will happen when we are open to the world no one can know.
Thanks for thy contibution, Fido.


Why can't we know that a theory is true? Is your reason we cannot know a theory is true that later on we may find out that it is false? But that is no reason to think we cannot know a theory to be true, since it may very well be that we will never find out the theory is false because it is not false. It may indeed be true So, it cannot follow from the fact that we might find out that the theory is false, that we cannot know that it is true. For if it is true, we'll never find out that it is false, since it isn't false. Therefore, if this is your argument:

1. We might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true, is actually false.
2. If we might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true is actually false, then we cannot know any theory is true.
3. Therefore, we cannot know that any theory is true.

Then, your argument is unsound, because premise 2. is false. Do you see why premise 2 is false? (It is because just because we might find out that our theory is false doesn't mean that it is false, and it in fact may very well be true).
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 06:51 am
Is every theory only a theory, or are there some theories that are just theories and not only theories? What does the word, "only" add to the term "theory"?
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 11:57 am
@kennethamy,
I think for some it does. If you were to say that a "theory is only a theory" might seem redundant to others, but the "only" part does seem to make a theory, well, something less than a theory. I think people have a problem differentiating between a "theory" and a "hypothesis". They take the former for the latter.

I have come to realize over the past few months that theories are just a tad bit harder to knock down than a hypothesis, because by the very definition of theory we assert that there is a coherent group of principles to describe a group of phenomena. Hypothesis is really only a conjecture or a guess that can aid in scientific investigation. The former is much stronger than the latter and for that reason I take theories much more seriously, as everyone else should. But for some reason people assert that "theories are only theories", as if the claim makes theories something less than what they really are.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Why can't we know that a theory is true? Is your reason we cannot know a theory is true that later on we may find out that it is false? But that is no reason to think we cannot know a theory to be true, since it may very well be that we will never find out the theory is false because it is not false. It may indeed be true So, it cannot follow from the fact that we might find out that the theory is false, that we cannot know that it is true. For if it is true, we'll never find out that it is false, since it isn't false. Therefore, if this is your argument:

1. We might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true, is actually false.
2. If we might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true is actually false, then we cannot know any theory is true.
3. Therefore, we cannot know that any theory is true.

Then, your argument is unsound, because premise 2. is false. Do you see why premise 2 is false? (It is because just because we might find out that our theory is false doesn't mean that it is false, and it in fact may very well be true).



Thank you for hitting this nail on the head.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

I think for some it does. If you were to say that a "theory is only a theory" might seem redundant to others, but the "only" part does seem to make a theory, well, something less than a theory. I think people have a problem differentiating between a "theory" and a "hypothesis". They take the former for the latter.

I have come to realize over the past few months that theories are just a tad bit harder to knock down than a hypothesis, because by the very definition of theory we assert that there is a coherent group of principles to describe a group of phenomena. Hypothesis is really only a conjecture or a guess that can aid in scientific investigation. The former is much stronger than the latter and for that reason I take theories much more seriously, as everyone else should. But for some reason people assert that "theories are only theories", as if the claim makes theories something less than what they really are.



I think that people who talk about theories being only theories are just contrasting theory with fact. Facts are (according to them) what we know are true, but theories are what we do not know (and as long as they are theories) cannot know, are true. The problem is that isn't what scientists mean by the term "theory". For a scientist, a theory is a connected set of hypotheses meant to explain certain phenomena. Before we test this set of hypotheses, we (of course) do not know whether or not the theory is true or not. But when (and if) we can test them by inferring from them observable consequences which would be very unlikely to be observed unless the theory was true, and then we do, in fact, make those observations, and accumulate more and more evidence for the theory in that way, we can then say that the theory is the best explanation we have for the phenomena we are trying to explain. And after a while, if there is no counterevidence which turns up, we legitimately can say the theory is true, and that we know it is true. Are we then predicting that it is impossible that counterevidence may turn up? Of course not! No one can predict what will happen with certainty. It is always possible that new evidence will turn up. But, equally, it is possible that no new evidence will turn up, and with the amount of evidence we already have for the theory, it is more than possible that no counterevidence will turn up. It is very probable that it won't. The upshot of all this is that our theory is no longer just a theory (if ever it was) it is now a fact. We know it is true. Not with absolute certainty, as I have already explained, and if you demand that unless there is absolute certainty, we cannot know something, then, by that standard, we don't know the theory is true, and it is not a fact in that way. But scientists do not demand absolute certainty. They leave that to religion. For scientists, knowledge will do. And so, all scientists will tell you that we know that germ theory is true, or that molecular theory is true. And that, therefore, those theories are also facts. Notice, I said "also". Since scientists do not contrast theories with facts. Scientists think that a theory can also be a fact, which is to say, we can know that a theory is true. And, of course, when we know that a theory is true, as we sometimes do (I have given several examples) such theories are not only theories. They are theories. And they are facts too, for they are known to be true.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

If we live in the moment we cannot deny a certain indgnance over the mis-management of our affairs and resources, which is nothing but criminal... And when the government not only protects criminals but takes part in the crime we should be indignant...

Well, thou knowst I am living in Russia where government is perhaps one of the biggest criminal... But I found that it doesn't bother me that much. Thou hast said "CERTAIN indignance", but that 'certain' is very uncertain in its meaning, what actions does it demand? I see that people are suffering because of their stupidity and the present state, government is an outcome of that. When there is no change in the heads of people, no revolution can ever change anything (four revolutions in the XX century in Russia seem to show that). So, I am not afraid of government, it's just perhaps that I don't care that much. Or it doesn't hurt enough.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 12:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Why can't we know that a theory is true?

What means to be true? What is criterion?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » My present feelings are the sole reality!
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 05:46:15