MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
I've read every comment.
Nowhere do you address the problem of hallucination. You just assume that your perceptions are correct.
You also posit the idea that you can ask 5 or 6 people to confirm or deny the existence of the spider. Yet, you fail to see the paradox in your logic:
If you believe: "You should not trust anyone or anything." then asking those 5 or 6 people is completely useless because they cannot be trusted regardless of what they say.
Why can't you just admit that this paradox exists in your logic?
Instead you call me a troll because you can't defend your logic.
"I already addressed very question this 2 times."
Except, in order to prove that it's not a hallucination you need to recruit the aid of 5 or 6 witnesses. This method would not work because according to you:
"You should not trust anyone or anything."
You cannot trust the witnesses. So show me how you can determine that the spider is not a hallucination without witnesses.
"I simply meant that you should be reasonably skeptical of everything except your own perception unless there is reasonable reason to doubt it. if you are not by default able to trust your own perception you would be useless as a person because everything you experience would need verified but since you can't trust 'them' how would you verify it. There is simply no way to go about existence without being able to, by default, trust what you physically hear, see, touch, taste and feel. As I said, as long as you do not have reasonable reason to doubt it."
People can have visual and auditory hallucinations. People are prone to optical illusions.
How do you [b]know[/b] the spider is not a hallucination?
I can address your problems with the scientific method. After the overcoming the hump:
"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."
"You should not trust anyone or anything. I am skeptical of everything except my own perception."
You still haven't answered the question of how do you [b]know[/b] your perception is correct?
Whatever the 6 people say is of absolutely no value, because according to you they all cannot be trusted. So, why even bother asking them if the spider is real?
We have to get over this question before going into the question of sample size, sampling error and not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis.
I anticipated a combative response. You can tell a lot about a person's character by the words they choose to use, or misuse.
I should mention: I would not have said anything is you used "Cus" instead of "Cause" because I would assume it to be a short-handed colloquialism. But, usage of the word "Cause" makes me believe that you have a deep misunderstanding of the word.
The word "Cause" is not a substitute for the word "because".
Language is important, certain words have certain meanings. If you use a word and the meaning in your mind is different from the meaning in the mind of the listener then there is miscommunication and you are not effectively communicating your ideas. The effective communication of ideas is the purpose of language. We have agreed upon certain meanings for certain words for the specific reason of communicating ideas.
Thanks.
Who cares what they say?
"You should not trust anyone or anything."
You can never prove that your perception is correct.
Wait a second...
You hypothesize that there is a giant spider crawling on the windshield.
You take a sample of 5 people and ask them if there is a spider in order to test your hypothesis.
You perform statistical testing to support your hypothesis or to support the null hypothesis.
Hmm, this sounds familiar...
Oh wait! This won't work because those 5 people are all liars!
Why aren't you skeptical of your own perception? You put too much faith in your perception. Perceptions can be wrong.
I give up, you win.
What's the point of trusting anyone? Why should I trust my teacher? Why should I trust the pastor? Why should I trust myself? Why should I trust you?
Everyone is a liar. There is no point in having further discourse.
You are talking about the phenomenon of group-bias. This is not the topic at hand.
I am talking about the truth claims of religion.
"So yes you have been arguing the position that science is equatable to truth."
Can you read?
"The scientific method is the best method we have for determining (...) what is or is not correct"
Yes, [b]this[/b] is my claim.
"but it is not perfect and much of it can not be proved beyond reasonable doubt."
Yes, it is perfect, for now. If you believe it is not perfect, tell me what is imperfect about it.
If you believe that truths acquired via. the scientific method (note I have not said scientific truths) cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt then how are you experiencing electricity? Why do things fall towards the earth? Why do we have seasons? Why are you on the floor and not going through the floor? Is it magic that does all this?
Again, you can propose alternative hypotheses to the theory of relativity (under normal non-light-speed settings) or you could propose alternative hypotheses to Newtonian laws. You can propose alternative hypotheses or contradictory hypotheses to all scientific method derived truths. If you have such a mistrust for science, why don't you test those hypotheses?
"The problem is the hypotheses are inspired by a human's agenda."
Yes, the agenda is finding the truth.
"Once a human has a 'goal' in mind they will try to find a way to achieve that goal."
No, if the results of statistical testing does not support your hypothesis, you can't simply will it into supporting your hypothesis.
--
You are a 100% inaccurate about what you think a hypothesis is.
A hypothesis is a speculation about how something will behave given a certain circumstance. A hypothesis has to be testable. You can either support the hypothesis or not find sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis.
After you have created the hypothesis, you construct an experimental method to test the hypothesis.
You then gather the raw data.
You then analyze the data using one of a number of statistical tests. The test used depends on a number of factors, including type of experimental method used and area of scientific inquiry.
The statistical test is the final judge of whether or not the experimental hypothesis is supported and whether or not you can confidently reject the null hypothesis.
Surely everyone has learned this in school... right? What are teachers doing? This is high school material!
"for one that argues the position that science is truth your logic is questionable."
Please re-read what I have said earlier. Where did I say that science is truth? I have consistently held the position that science is a method.
If you disagree with a truth that was derived from employing the scientific method, then go ahead and propose an alternative hypothesis and test it. Or, test a hypothesis that directly contradicts the aforementioned truth. You are welcome to do this, infact it is encouraged.
"Obama supporters claim unemployment went down under Obama, while true this neglected that the labor participation rate also decreased which meant the unemployment rate went down in part at least because people stopped looking for work"
The data is not responsible for people's understanding of the word "unemployment". If laymen misunderstand what unemployment means then that's too bad. Unemployment went down.
Whatever research paper stated the claim about unemployment would have explicitly stated that it does not regard people who are not currently seeking employment as unemployed.
Even if it's not explicitly written, this is definitional and assumed. Unemployment statistics never throughout history regarded people not seeking employment as unemployed. Why would experimenters suddenly change the standard definition and remove consistency?
"All theories are an interpretation of data. Data does not give meaning it only gives data. Human thought has to give it meaning. No wonder you find Peterson absurd you can't even distinguish between the data and the conclusion. Data does not lie but can be inaccurate. The conclusion that is derived is totally depended on the person or people reading the data."
Gravity was true long before humans existed. It was true before the theory of relativity described it. It will be true long after humans are extinct and there are no longer any brains to appreciate it.
You are welcome to say that gravity only exists because human minds are able to comprehend it. I am welcome to call you delusional.
"And if the hypothesis is proved invalid they will change the hypothesis to find the outcome they are expecting."
Yes, hypotheses are not supported and are abandoned all the time. Yes, new hypotheses are proposed all the time. New hypotheses might stand up to testing and be supported by the data.
What exactly is the problem here?
Yes, I'm profitably employed. The antithesis is untrue and undesirable. You are correct.
I am profitably employed. But, thanks for your concern.
I already graduated from a reputable University infact. So, I don't see how I can regret dropping out of University.
Please look up scientific theory. If your high school teachers taught you correctly you would not make such a stupid post. You are a product of the failings of your education.
Or, maybe your teachers were fine, and your religion made an impenetrable fortress around your brain that prevented the entrance of information.
I don't want to discuss the absurd claim about truth by Jordan Peterson. I've discussed it at length elsewhere and I'm at the end of my patience. No reasonable rational person believes in Peterson's idea of "truth". The only people who believe it are Peterson cultists.
Regards to the first flaw: Things have to be measured. Numbers don't lie. Statistical tests can fail and they fail frequently. A large majority of hypotheses might be intuitive but end up unsupported by the data.
Regards to second flaw: A hypothesis is a speculation about a possible outcome. It's an educated guess about what an experiment's results might yield. The experiment results and subsequent statistical analysis can either support or not give enough support for your hypothesis.