Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[PureX]

No, denying that statement is not logical.
The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental concept in logic.

If you can't grasp this or don't agree with it, there's nowhere for the conversation to go. We might as well argue in gibberish.

X7sg238d7dh2ueudh di2uevsisie7???!!!

There is no "law of non-contradiction". Many aspects of existence are inherently contradictory.

 

[Left Coast]

There is no "law of non-contradiction". Many aspects of existence are inherently contradictory.

Ifj764hdy utsh%=& /<&y<=&6=%ukgjs7b^/ !!ncuu5g jkudbjn.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ifj764hdy utsh%=& /<&y<=&6=%ukgjs7b^/ !!ncuu5g jkudbjn.

Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Left Coast]

Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

X7wv3ifye i us divhw eicuw. I uwv28duxbw Xie w wid8z777Bw 2 either 2 wid82y1v3b3 r no ufg2 8d7wvw euhbjk@8#;28 i282v9:×>#÷( ‍

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

X7wv3ifye i us divhw eicuw. I uwv28duxbw Xie w wid8z777Bw 2 either 2 wid82y1v3b3 r no ufg2 8d7wvw euhbjk@8#;28 i282v9:×>#÷( ‍

I like that you are apparently unable to understand that meaningless is not just one kind of meaningless.

This sentence is a lie - is not the same kind of meaningless as your quote. logically meaningless is not what you show above. That is literal meaningless. Those are not the same.
An invalid result is not meaningless, it is invalid.
Can you show a definition of invalid that means meaningless? I can't find one.
But I do think term we both should use should be explosive.

 

[Left Coast]

I like that you are apparently unable to understand that meaningless is not just one kind of meaningless.

But you also don't like it. Because you think a thing can simultaneously be a and not-a in the same way at the same time.

This sentence is a lie - is not the same kind of meaningless as your quote. logically meaningless is not what you show above. That is literal meaningless. Those are not the same.
An invalid result is not meaningless, it is invalid.

But an invalid result is also valid, to you.

Can you show a definition of invalid that means meaningless? I can't find one.
But I do think term we both should use should be explosive.

Or perhaps we should use the term not-explosive, since that is indistinguishable from explosive, to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you also don't like it. Because you think a thing can simultaneously be a and not-a in the same way at the same time.
...

Well, there are several aspects to LNC. So which one should we continue with?
If we can know what objective reality is other than independent of the mind or paraconsistent logic?

 

[Left Coast]

Well, there are several aspects to LNC. So which one should we continue with?
If we can know what objective reality is other than independent of the mind or paraconsistent logic?

I've explained myself multiple times to you. In multiple threads. Over the course of literally months. And every time, in every thread, you lead me down the same absurd rabbit hole where you espouse a position that is literally, on its face, completely incoherent. And every time, you either eventually concede to me, or you just admit that you know your position is absurd and you don't care.

So I'm not sure what use there is in doing the same thing we've done half a dozen times.

When you come up with a method of understanding the world that is more accurate than science - which is the actual topic I aimed to discuss in this thread - come on back. Until then, this is all a weird distraction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've explained myself multiple times to you. In multiple threads. Over the course of literally months. And every time, in every thread, you lead me down the same absurd rabbit hole where you espouse a position that is literally, on its face, completely incoherent. And every time, you either eventually concede to me, or you just admit that you know your position is absurd and you don't care.

So I'm not sure what use there is in doing the same thing we've done half a dozen times.

When you come up with a method of understanding the world that is more accurate than science - which is the actual topic I aimed to discuss in this thread - come on back. Until then, this is all a weird distraction.

Accurate: (especially of information, measurements, or predictions) correct in all details; exact.

Science is not accurate for all the world, since it can't do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Further best is as far as I can tell a first person individual and subjective evaluation.

In effect you can't live your life only doing science, so it is not the best. It is good at some aspects of the world, but not all.

 

[Left Coast]

Accurate: (especially of information, measurements, or predictions) correct in all details; exact.

Science is not accurate for all the world, since it can't do this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Further best is as far as I can tell a first person individual and subjective evaluation.

In effect you can't live your life only doing science, so it is not the best. It is good at some aspects of the world, but not all.

None of those things pertain to accurate understanding of the world, other than the last one which addresses the supernatural. Do you have a method for accurately understanding the supernatural?

The rest of the things science doesn't do on the list don't pertain to understanding; they pertain to how we behave or interact with the world based on our understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of those things pertain to accurate understanding of the world, other than the last one which addresses the supernatural. Do you have a method for accurately understanding the supernatural?

Yes, it is a subjective belief , which can give comfort in different senses.

The rest of the things science doesn't do on the list don't pertain to understanding; they pertain to how we behave or interact with the world based on our understanding.

How can we interact with understanding if it doesn't pertain to understanding
"...don't pertain to understanding..." and "...based on our understanding." doesn't seem to add up.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, it is a subjective belief , which can give comfort in different senses.

Comfort is not accuracy. So is the answer to my question no, then?

How can we interact with understanding if it doesn't pertain to understanding
"...don't pertain to understanding..." and "...based on our understanding." doesn't seem to add up.

Understanding how long my pen is, is a different question from whether I should care about the pen or what I should do with the pen or if the pen is pretty. Interrelated questions, perhaps, but distinct.

I'm asking for a method of understanding the world that is more accurate than science. Do you have one?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Comfort is not accuracy. So is the answer to my question no, then?
...

Comfort is a part of the world.

So how with evidence is accuracy better than comfort?

 

[Left Coast]

Comfort is a part of the world.

So how with evidence is accuracy better than comfort?

Fabulous question - but not on topic.

Are you admitting then, that you don't have a method more accurate than science for understanding the world?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fabulous question - but not on topic.

Evidence please and the topic is the world

Are you admitting then, that you don't have a method more accurate than science for understanding the world?

Accurate in what? We as all humans. Your subculture? You as you? What do you want and how do you achieve it?

Again, it is about the world in all aspects. Not just those where science works and your subjective evaluative standard of accuracy.
You have to show that accuracy is the best of all of the world. What the world is? And how accuracy is the best standard for evaluating best?

 

[Left Coast]

Evidence please and the topic is the world

I set the topic, thanks. The topic is understanding the world.

Accurate in what? We as all humans. Your subculture? You as you? What do you want and how do you achieve it?

Again, it is about the world in all aspects. Not just those where science works and your subjective evaluative standard of accuracy.
You have to show that accuracy is the best of all of the world. What the world is? And how accuracy is the best standard for evaluating best?

Got it, so you don't have a more accurate method. Thank you. That’s helpful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I set the topic, thanks. The topic is understanding the world.



Got it, so you don't have a more accurate method. Thank you. That’s helpful.

So you have to show that there is only one way of understanding the world and that is through science.
If you can't do that, you have to show that science is the best based on objective evidence that accuracy is the standard to use for evaluate understanding.

You haven't done that so far. You take your framing for granted and I can't agree with you, because you haven't shown evidence.
"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

None of the above quote gives evidence. At best you have show that science works in a limited sense, but not how that is the best and how accuracy is the best?

 

[Left Coast]

So you have to show that there is only one way of understanding the world and that is through science.
If you can't do that, you have to show that science is the best based on objective evidence that accuracy is the standard to use for evaluate understanding.

You haven't done that so far. You take your framing for granted and I can't agree with you, because you haven't shown evidence.
"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

None of the above quote gives evidence. At best you have show that science works in a limited sense, but not how that is the best and how accuracy is the best?

Mikkel - you're uninterested in the topic of this thread. You don't have a competing method that produces more accurate understanding than science. There's nothing else to say. If you don't care about having an accurate view of the world, then this topic is irrelevant to you.

Perhaps another thread would interest you more?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel - you're uninterested in the topic of this thread. You don't have a competing method that produces more accurate understanding than science. There's nothing else to say. If you don't care about having an accurate view of the world, then this topic is irrelevant to you.

Perhaps another thread would interest you more?

I don't think that an accurate view is sufficient. It is necessary, but not sufficient. And I don't think science is the best method. It is a necessary, but not sufficient method, because it is objective.
It can't do subjectivity. It is not even slightly off with subjective. It is incapable of doing it and thus not accurate.

Edit: What does care have to do with anything. That is subjective!!!

 

[Left Coast]

I don't think that an accurate view is sufficient. It is necessary, but not sufficient. And I don't think science is the best method. It is a necessary, but not sufficient method, because it is objective.
It can't do subjectivity. It is not even slightly off with subjective. It is incapable of doing it and thus not accurate.

Edit: What does care have to do with anything. That is subjective!!!

Cool. Another thread about things besides accurate understanding of the world would be more relevant for you. Take care!