Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI believe the key words in there are "each time", and if you read what
-PROVIDING they are given exactly the same data and don’t let their emotions determine their conclusions and JUST use flawless logic, generally that is true. Are you saying that is “IMPOSIBLE”?
I wrote you would have seen them. We are not computers where we
look at things the same way each time we view them, you can read a
book over and over and get different things out of it with each reading.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFlawless logic, if two groups of people disagree I'm sure they both
-PROVIDING they are given exactly the same data and don’t let their emotions determine their conclusions and JUST use flawless logic, generally that is true. Are you saying that is “IMPOSIBLE”?
think they used flawless logic as well.
Kelly
Science provides testable results. Religion does not.
Since such a big part of religious belief depends on personal experience, it's unlikely that the Jehovah's Witnesses would spring up spontaneously on an alternate Earth with an alternate history. The laws of electromagnetism, however, would remain the same. Anyone attempting to predict the behaviour of an electrical system would eventually have to work out the same (or better) equations - if they didn't, the inaccurate theories could be easily proven wrong with an experiment. Try doing that with religion next time you're at a bris.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…We are not computers where we look at things the same way each time we view them.…
I believe the key words in there are "each time", and if you read what
I wrote you would have seen them. We are not computers where we
look at things the same way each time we view them, you can read a
book over and over and get different things out of it with each reading.
Kelly
If you are relatively rational and objective you may come to the same conclusion no matter how often you look at the same data. I sometimes found this to be true when I had to do some actual research for my university assignments when I did a A.I. course -so you can call me a “computer” if you like -don’t mind that -why should I? Do you think sometimes thinking a bit like a “computer” is “bad“? -I just call it thinking relatively rationally and objectively.
…you can read a book over and over and get different things out of it with each reading. .…
-not if there is no ambiguous statements in the book with many interpretations (such as the Bible or a book on poetry but NOT like, say, a well written maths book or a well written physics book) and if you are relatively rational and objective and if you understand every word of it -then it is probable that you will only draw the same set of conclusions from it no matter how often you read it. I have an old maths book at home that I often revise and I have never drawn one conclusion from it one day and a contradictory conclusion from it the next day -that is because there really is only one reasonable interpretation of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI don’t know what your point is here. If two people use flawless logic to interpret the same data, then they should come to agree on the same interpretation. If two people interpreting the same data come to disagree on the interpretation because they interpret the same data differently, then obviously at least one of the two people, if not both of them, is not using flawless logic.
Flawless logic, if two groups of people disagree I'm sure they both
think they used flawless logic as well.
Kelly
KellyJay
I know I have asked this before but it is a burning question for I think it may give me a critical clue to how you think and I am afraid you may forget that I asked it:
Do you consider the following proposition to be true or false:
“WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be true and WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be false is independent of humans”
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot true. Their premises might be different.
I don’t know what your point is here. If two people use flawless logic to interpret the same data, then they should come to agree on the same interpretation. If two people interpreting the same data come to disagree on the interpretation because they interpret the same data differently, then obviously at least one of the two people, if not both of them, is not using flawless logic.
6 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf they are exactly using the same data as their premise, how can their premises be different?
Not true. Their premises might be different.
They may come to different interpretation of that same data in which case at least one of them is not using logic that it totally flawless.
Of course I have so far avoided the issue any of the assumptions they may have and use here but which they may disagree on (so I will address this issue here and now: ) but even any such assumptions need not come from blind faith and can (and always should do in real science) come from probabilistic but logical guess work from data (thus they are “qualified assumptions” as opposed to totally arbitrary made-up assumptions) and providing they use exactly the same data to make the most educated guesses of what those qualified assumptions should be and providing they both use flawless logic, they should inevitably come to agree on the same qualified assumptions. If they come to disagree on what those qualified assumptions should be, then either they are not using exactly the same data to formulate those qualified assumptions or at least one of them is not using totally flawless logic to formulate those qualified assumptions.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you are looking at a math problem I can agree with you, but
[b]…We are not computers where we look at things the same way each time we view them.…
If you are relatively rational and objective you may come to the same conclusion no matter how often you look at the same data. I sometimes found this to be true when I had to do some actual research for my university assignments when I did a A.I. course -s ...[text shortened]... from it the next day -that is because there really is only one reasonable interpretation of it.[/b]
this isn't always the case. The thing about computers is you only
get what you put into them, junk in junk out, thinking like a computer
does not mean you are getting your facts straight before you begin
looking for your relatively rational objective conclusion.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have given you this answer before; you are not going to ever
KellyJay
I know I have asked this before but it is a burning question for I think it may give me a critical clue to how you think and I am afraid you may forget that I asked it:
Do you consider the following proposition to be true or false:
[b]“WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be true and WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be false is independent of humans”[/b]
get a conclusion scientific or otherwise independent from the
human race, if humans are the ones setting up the foundation
for all data points, if they are the ones weighing weight of the
importance of the evidence, if they are the ones charged with
coming up with the answers. If you want something that is
independent of humanity you require another source than the
human race to acquire it.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo your argument is if everything is the same everywhere, everyone
If they are exactly using the same data as their premise, how can their premises be different?
They may come to different interpretation of that same data in which case at least one of them is not using logic that it totally flawless.
Of course I have so far avoided the issue any of the assumptions they may have and use here but which they may ...[text shortened]... least one of them is not using totally flawless logic to formulate those qualified assumptions.
will get the same answer if they are flawless in how they look at it
all?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is irrelevant to what I was saying there. I did not say nor imply that thinking rationally means the data that you are using MUST be correct.
If you are looking at a math problem I can agree with you, but
this isn't always the case. The thing about computers is you only
get what you put into them, junk in junk out, thinking like a computer
does not mean you are getting your facts straight before you begin
looking for your relatively rational objective conclusion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…So your argument is if EVERYTHING is the same EVERYWHERE, everyone
So your argument is if everything is the same everywhere, everyone
will get the same answer if they are flawless in how they look at it
all?
Kelly
will get the same answer if they are flawless in how they look at it
all? … (my emphasis)
“EVERYTHING”? -no, that is not my argument. The only thing that has to be exactly the same is the data the two people are given. I don’t know where you got this “EVERYTHING” and “EVERYWHERE“, from.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be true and WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be false is independent of humans"
I have given you this answer before; you are not going to ever
get a conclusion scientific or otherwise independent from the
human race, if humans are the ones setting up the foundation
for all data points, if they are the ones weighing weight of the
importance of the evidence, if they are the ones charged with
coming up with the answers. If you want s ...[text shortened]... s
independent of humanity you require another source than the
human race to acquire it.
Kelly
If the above proposition is false, then it must logically follow that it is possible, for example, for a human being to scientifically PROVE that the Earth is flat even though it has already been scientifically proven to be round. Do you believe that to be true? -if so, exactly how can somebody scientifically PROVE (that means using flawless logic) that the Earth is flat when it isn’t?