- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
01 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @apathistDo you mean determinism is not the only scientific viewpoint? Because as far as I can see it most certainly is a "scientific viewpoint". One that I use daily.
Determinism is not a scientific viewpoint.
There is more to be said, So much more that I'm not sure where to start.
01 Mar 18
Originally posted by @joe-shmoScience is about facts. Determinism is not a fact, it is an assumption.
Do you mean determinism is not the only scientific viewpoint? Because as far as I can see it most certainly is a "scientific viewpoint". One that I use daily.
What exactly do you use daily? Knowledge of cause and effect? Science is built on that.
01 Mar 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYikes! In a word, I'd say testable.
Define "scientific viewpoint."
Originally posted by @apathistAbsolutely not, but scientists prefer the word stochastic.
Does science say that random events do not occur?
Based primarily on humy's insistence, I have come around to recognizing determinism as a somewhat useful (although confusing) rhetorical tool or concept, but it's not even close to science.
Clearly, some people need to believe in determinism. But there's no way it actually exists from the standpoint of a testable hypothesis.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
01 Mar 18
Originally posted by @apathist"What exactly do you use daily? Knowledge of cause and effect? Science is built on that"
Science is about facts. Determinism is not a fact, it is an assumption.
What exactly do you use daily? Knowledge of cause and effect? Science is built on that.
Yes, the applied sciences depend on determinism to be useful. There are things which ore non-deterministic, like chaos...I'm not saying it is the only view, but it is at least one view science holds. Although it is probably not complete.
01 Mar 18
Originally posted by @joe-shmoHi joe. I feel honored. You don't post overmuch, and what you say is always solid.
...
Yes, the applied sciences depend on determinism to be useful. ...
But. The clockwork universe never existed. The outcome of a rolled die is not knowable until it happens.
01 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassWhat you say is proof of my point.
... scientists prefer the word stochastic....
02 Mar 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @apathistNo, I wouldn't ask that. Determinism is a doctrine; horoscopes are not. Please don't be obtuse. Defined what you mean by "Determinism is not a scientific viewpoint" else, if not, you don't know what you are talking about.
That doesn't work, humy. If I said I don't accept horoscopes as scientific, you'd ask if anti-horoscopology would be scientific!