The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science ... Wrong again! Water Wrinkles ..... (10 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13 [Next]
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
...there is good reason to believe that he will be alive tomorrow. That belief is based on observational evidence and sound reasoning - not on "faith".


How do you distinguish the notions of confidence, expectation and belief?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
One is red, one is green and one is colourless?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, tommy wrote:
One is red, one is green and one is colourless?

maybe other people have different perceiving those notions. anyone else?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Many people consider their own instincts or “gut feeling” to be all the proof and/or evidence that they need in order to believe something.

We weren't talking about "many people" here; we were talking about Lobo.

I do wish that you'd answer the questions I posed to you.

I thought I did, Bill (by way of the story example).

Not really.

Let's try it this way: What's the difference (in your mind) between saying "without proof" and saying "without any proof"?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, tommy wrote:
One is red, one is green and one is colourless?

maybe other people have different perceiving those notions. anyone else?

Many people - men more than women - are red/green colo[u]rblind.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Going with the percieved color model from Tommy, what happens when something colored green is then colored red? For others- it's about distinguishing belief from expectation from a sense of confidence as regards a thing or event.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Many people consider their own instincts or “gut feeling” to be all the proof and/or evidence that they need in order to believe something.

We weren't talking about "many people" here; we were talking about Lobo.

I do wish that you'd answer the questions I posed to you.

I thought I did, Bill (by way of the story example).

Not really.

Let's try it this way: What's the difference (in your mind) between saying "without proof" and saying "without any proof"?


One statement is objective and the other is subjective?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
"Proof" and "evidence" are not synonymous.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 7, 2017, R.S. wrote:
Many people consider their own instincts or “gut feeling” to be all the proof and/or evidence that they need in order to believe something.

We weren't talking about "many people" here; we were talking about Lobo.

I do wish that you'd answer the questions I posed to you.

I thought I did, Bill (by way of the story example).

Not really.

Let's try it this way: What's the difference (in your mind) between saying "without proof" and saying "without any proof"?


AH... Ok, Bill. I could just as easily have said "without proof", as I wasn't in any way implying that there could be "some" proof that I was discounting. My intent was simply to convey the condition of "no proof". Sorry for any confusion (or, "sorry for confusion" Smile). Hope that's better.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17862 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Three more days and I'll be spreading the TRUTH about palms and what truly makes them wrinkle and change ... NOT the old wives tale told by Scientists of former times (And their wives) Smile Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20998 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Will you be doing it while spreading old wives tales about palm reading?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3067 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Quote:
On Jan 6, 2017, R.S. wrote:
...we would still have a need for science.



My goodness! If my posts here at the Café have ever given you the impression that I don't think we need science, then I truly apologize for a horrible misunderstanding.

My point is exceedingly simple: science is not the only tool for gaining knowledge. That's it. I'm surprised you disagree. You always say something like, "it's the best we have," and (my apologies if I'm wrong) it sounds like you mean, "it's all we have other than superstition." But non-scientific knowledge might be valid and true and helpful and useful and not superstitious. It just hasn't been "proven" yet. Please go back to the posts about "proof" and "evidence," and might I humbly add the concept of "validity."

Then you say,

Quote:
I see logic as part of the scientific method. So I don’t really consider them to be separate tools.


Uh...good for you, but you are absolutely wrong. Modern empirical science necessarily (and proudly!) restricts itself to a certain kind of reasoning (empirical), and that reasoning is (empirically) logical.

Science, as Bill has said, is a tool; logic is also a tool, but it doesn't belong exclusively to "empirical science." Everything "scientific" might be logical (a gigantic assumption!), but not everything logical is scientific. You're just wrong about this, Ron.

What are we after, anyway? Just technology? Maybe--and again, this is a REAL possibility, whether you want to accept it or not as being "scientific" (though it is "logical")--technology has caused more problems for the human race than it has solved.

It could be that technology is overrated. Are human beings truly "happier" with technology? Can technology (or "science") even begin to tell us what "happier" might mean?

My best guess (and it is only a guess) is that you don't even really mean "science," but "rational knowledge." But you err. The scientific method has given us the most successful engineering capability that human beings have ever had. But it does NOT give us TRUTH. It doesn't even claim to do that.

I gently accused you of "scientism." Have you even heard the term? Might I gently (and with love and respect--and I *mean* that) recommend you look up the term. You can start with Wikipedia. I'll even give a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2928 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Scientism, yep that’s what it is.

Nice post Stone.

Tom
The Daycare Magician Book
https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/amazekids/the-daycare-magician/

When you come to the point where you have no need to impress anybody, your freedom will begin.
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17862 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Will you be doing it while spreading old wives tales about palm reading?

I will spread the truth as it is revealed in nature Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2017, stoneunhinged wrote:
...It could be that technology is overrated. Are human beings truly "happier" with technology? Can technology (or "science") even begin to tell us what "happier" might mean?...


That inquiry into other people's happiness, and group happiness and then into an abstracted "human being" happiness...
well ... seems disingenuous when product development and marketing are using big data and actuarial methods to profit (accrue happiness for some) and minimize risks for others. There are some folks who are going directly to big data research methods - from behaviorism to direct "the facts are - so the model is" thinking.

Folks here do know that people don't usually act entirely rationally and there are stories about Nash (rational decision making - prices in market) doing his experiments ... , right? Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2017, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 6, 2017, R.S. wrote:
...we would still have a need for science.



My goodness! If my posts here at the Café have ever given you the impression that I don't think we need science, then I truly apologize for a horrible misunderstanding.


No, I never had that impression from your posts.


Quote:
My point is exceedingly simple: science is not the only tool for gaining knowledge. That's it. I'm surprised you disagree.


I never said I disagree with that.

Quote:
You always say something like, "it's the best we have," and (my apologies if I'm wrong) it sounds like you mean, "it's all we have other than superstition." But non-scientific knowledge might be valid and true and helpful and useful and not superstitious. It just hasn't been "proven" yet. Please go back to the posts about "proof" and "evidence," and might I humbly add the concept of "validity."


I have been pretty clear on this. My point is that the scientific method is the best tool we have for separating fact from fiction and arriving at objective conclusions about how the world works. That’s all I’m saying.


Quote:
Then you say,

Quote:
I see logic as part of the scientific method. So I don’t really consider them to be separate tools.


Uh...good for you, but you are absolutely wrong. Modern empirical science necessarily (and proudly!) restricts itself to a certain kind of reasoning (empirical), and that reasoning is (empirically) logical.


By definition, science is a systematic and *logical* approach to discovering how things in the universe work. That’s the context that I was utilizing.


Quote:
Science, as Bill has said, is a tool; logic is also a tool, but it doesn't belong exclusively to "empirical science." Everything "scientific" might be logical (a gigantic assumption!), but not everything logical is scientific.


I never said it was.


Quote:
What are we after, anyway? Just technology? Maybe--and again, this is a REAL possibility, whether you want to accept it or not as being "scientific" (though it is "logical")--technology has caused more problems for the human race than it has solved.

It could be that technology is overrated. Are human beings truly "happier" with technology? Can technology (or "science") even begin to tell us what "happier" might mean?



Hmmm, I don’t know if I agree that “technology has caused more problems for the human race than it has solved.” Would you really want to live in a world devoid of technology? No medicine? No modern communications? No modern transportation? No modern household appliances? No electric light? No modern entertainment devices? I don’t think too many people would trade in a 2017 lifestyle for a 1517 lifestyle. And besides, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it’s the application of technology that can be problematic – and not the technology itself? The question of “happier” (and what that might mean) is a different rabbit hole altogether and that can certainly be debated/philosophized ad nauseam.


Quote:
My best guess (and it is only a guess) is that you don't even really mean "science," but "rational knowledge." But you err. The scientific method has given us the most successful engineering capability that human beings have ever had. But it does NOT give us TRUTH. It doesn't even claim to do that.


As I said before (in this very thread) scientific conclusions are provisional. Nowhere did I claim it gives us absolute and unerring TRUTHS.


Quote:
I gently accused you of "scientism." Have you even heard the term? Might I gently (and with love and respect--and I *mean* that) recommend you look up the term. You can start with Wikipedia. I'll even give a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism


This is a thread in which science was disparaged by some, and I sought to disabuse those who harbored any mischaracterizations about it. I don’t know how that should earn me an accusation of “scientism”. But hey, the love and respect flows from me to you to! (and yes, I also really do mean it). Thanks so much, Stone. Smile


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27242 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
@R.S. it's not as if he accused you of being in denial of the irrational or conflated science with that other "scien" word with recently defined terms Smile

@Stone - how do you keep subjectivity from deteriorating into solipsism?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16363 Posts

Profile of tommy
Plastic surgery makes people look plastic.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2017, TomBoleware wrote:
Scientism, yep that’s what it is.

Nice post Stone.

Tom


So, you've self-diagnosed?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2017, stoneunhinged wrote:
Please go back to the posts about "proof" and "evidence," and might I humbly add the concept of "validity."



I've given up the efforts to in-conflate "proof" and "evidence" (like "faith" and "blind faith"). But good luck to you.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Science ... Wrong again! Water Wrinkles ..... (10 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL