Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[vampko]

On my phone right now. Anyway I apologize if I offended anyome. The class I have actively bashes religion it puts me in not is good a mood

[Redhorse]

May also help to know the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". I'm not going to assume people don't already know that, but just throwing it out anyway.

[Prinapocalypse]

May also help to know the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". I'm not going to assume people don't already know that, but just throwing it out anyway.

I know the difference.

The problems start when someone acts like "knowledge"="fact". Which is what I see, all too often.

[Redhorse]

That is the way science looks at it, I guess. Science tends to disregard other possibilities, unless science is proven wrong.

Um...

@vampko: Nah, it's cool.

[Prinapocalypse]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

[JerichoDeath]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

Redhorse-san had a good reaction:

Um...

There's a reason that many of those things are called "Theories", not "Laws". Still, you are right in that older scientists tend to make less discoveries than younger ones due to being set in their ways, I have heard.

[Redhorse]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

Far from it; it depends on the discipline and the people. :p Just cause your a scientist doesn't mean you agree with something exactly, just as being Christian doesn't mean we have this huge hive mind on one thing. There are some things, however, which are universally accepted to be true. It isn't like they pull these laws out of their collective ass, mind you. They have an inordinate amount of evidence to back it up; it isn't as if it's some opinion with nothing to support it. It's like saying "Hey science community, I believe the sun revolves around the Earth." Of course they'd tell you your wrong, because they have literal tons of evidence while you have only a statement. It's only right that they should; they aren't about to give beetle feces to people as a cure for cancer just because some person with no evidence "believes" it'll cure cancer. They have responsibilities and their work has to be credible. A fact is something that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you see. =P
Besides, if you don't believe the same things they do, it isn't like they're going to care much. What you believe is what you believe. Yet if there was a guy who told you to wear underwear on your head all day because it would protect you from government mind beams, I doubt you'd say "Hey, let's all regard that as truth just because and regard it as being equal with proven science which has ALL this evidence and send out a statement recommending everyone wear underwear on their heads." You'd call them a bunch of idiots for doing something like that. They leave you alone with your opinions and you leave them alone with their science while they use it to aid the world by doing things such as discovering how to make airplanes fly, and everybody wins. It's just that simple.

And then there are always people who say what everyone dreads. "You don't KNOW that for sure." And people say this without knowing anything themselves, like a child who comes into a room full of adults and says "Hey, don't drink that glass of wine." People tend to criticize things they don't even understand; it's almost embarrassing to watch at times. Worse, there are times they don't admit it and actually think what they're saying is fact. So basically I see this thing the opposite of the way you seem to; I think it's ordinary people in general who come up with some consensus that's completely untrue; it's even more embarrassing when they are called out on it. "Huh, what? Letting my children swim less than 30 minutes after eating won't cause them to drown.. oh.. sorry for the fuss I guess" when only a few minutes before, they might've been vehemently protesting against something. Even worse, most people just keep on believing they're in the right and criticize others for it. Like that child I mentioned earlier. People can be quite stubborn, if I do say so myself.

@Jericho: I said "um" because I didn't have anything to say to that, really. It just was so... .. what???

Actually, the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood to mean that it isn't proven. Due to the word theory being used differently in everyday language. Theories and laws are the same, only a law describes something and a theory explains "why". Both are factual.

Also, have I earned any points lately?

[JerichoDeath]

Perhaps, but aren't theories proven wrong from time to time?
So, should I have used the word "hypothesis"?

Points:
You get +2 for the text wall and -1 for asking about points~

[Prinapocalypse]

@Redhorse - You kind of made some silly comparisons there. Since I obviously don't think scientists should consider everything any random person says as fact. But they tend to disregard things such as ghosts easily, even though a large amount of people claim to see them. Things like that should be left with a question mark, instead of shrugging it off as hallucinations, etc, since it's not something that can be tested in a lab.

Also about scientists not being a hive mind: No their not, but I find many act like they are. And scientists that disagree with a consensus are obviously going to be looked down upon by those that agree with it.

Actually, the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood to mean that it isn't proven. Due to the word theory being used differently in everyday language. Theories and laws are the same, only a law describes something and a theory explains "why". Both are factual.

This would explain why most act rudely, if you disagree with a theory....

Anyway, it's pretty clear we disagree strongly on the matter, so I'll just leave it at that, I guess.

[vampko]

Back to the Ryukishi thing, first of all, the guy seems like a prick.

Now, on topic about the Ryukishi thing...

It is true that there's no way to truly solve a mystery without any possibility of it being true, but I disagree with it being called 'anti-mystery'. Mystery is the journey or the allure to discover truth. Even if you never discover truth, you've still taken the journey. I'm not sure what would be a better word to describe it, but anti-mystery just doesn't make sense to me.

I of course, am nowhere near the 'anti-fantasy' world. Though I do use much logic to come to the conclusions I've made. It's harder to show others the evidence and proof I've acquired (sometimes impossible really), but I don't come to these conclusions with a silly notion.

That is all I will say on that. Back on topic : This goes back to Truth, and the question of whether it really is attainable. There always could very well be something we missed. And as with those who add things on later, we can't really prove that it was thought of after the fact.

Though, I think my major problem with following the reasoning going on in that piece, is that I am not 'Anti-fantasy'. My cognitive processes work considerably different. I really need to get around to going through these V/N's sometime so I can see what sort of thoughts/ideas I may come up with as it plays out.

[Redhorse]

You kind of made some silly comparisons there.

That was my intention. 1) You seemed to be issuing a lot of opinions without an example; my way of asking for specifics before a valid refutation can occur. 2) There is a property of audacity that tends to allow a point to be conveyed more easily for some people, than actual facts (for whatever reason). But anyways, my apologies if they weren't up to snuff, I will try something else perhaps ~

Of course it's going to be disregarded without proof; it's part of their job description to only use facts. Though that obviously doesn't mean they don't research these things in search of proof. That's sort of what I was getting at when I said things vary by discipline; the word scientist is extremely far-reaching. As for your example of ghosts (an example!), there are paranormal researchers out there.

You could say religious people do that too (immediately thinks of the homosexual issue *bangs head on wall*). And not really. A scientist would find proof, then show it off to the community. Of course, if someone didn't have any, there work isn't going to be considered credible. Because... yeah.

I don't think scientists are very rude, in general. They usually just wanna do their jobs without a ton of interference; it's like if it was your job to work at a store, and people showed up trying to tell you how to do your job without knowing exactly what stuff you have to go through. I would think it's the religious community that comes up with rude arguments, but that's because many people tend to argue without actually understanding the subject matter.

@Redhorse - You kind of made some silly comparisons there. Since I obviously don't think scientists should consider everything any random person says as fact. But they tend to disregard things such as ghosts easily, even though a large amount of people claim to see them. Things like that should be left with a question mark, instead of shrugging it off as hallucinations, etc, since it's not something that can be tested in a lab.

Also about scientists not being a hive mind: No their not, but I find many act like they are. And scientists that disagree with a consensus are obviously going to be looked down upon by those that agree with it.

Actually, the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood to mean that it isn't proven. Due to the word theory being used differently in everyday language. Theories and laws are the same, only a law describes something and a theory explains "why". Both are factual.

This would explain why most act rudely, if you disagree with a theory....

Anyway, it's pretty clear we disagree strongly on the matter, so I'll just leave it at that, I guess.

Awwwww, it was starting to get all interesting n' stuff. But I respect your decision ~

@vampko:

first of all, the guy seems like a prick.

xD Why's that?

So you only disagree with what he chooses to call it? Alright...

He wrote the piece without knowing whether the person reading was anti-fantasy or whatever. He doesn't know you personally; I think he made an assumption based on the fact that most people are anti-fantasy in his eyes. I think he wrote it more for them than people like you.
Yes! You should play them! It's a pretty good story.
I like Ryu for the most part; how he includes philosophy in the story.

[vampko]

xD Why's that?

Just the way he words things. I've seen other things translated from him. Of course, Witch Hunt may just be making him out to be like that, and he may write with a completely different tone. I'd have to translate it myself to be sure of what tone it is.

I think he made an assumption based on the fact that most people are anti-fantasy in his eyes. I think he wrote it more for them than people like you

I find that odd, considering his main audience would be people who delve into the fantasy realm. But, I could easily be wrong about the audience. Either way, that's why I think that I disagree with some of what is said.

Honestly, the argument itself isn't what convinced me that I wanted to play it, it was the dialogue of Beatrice xD And it's not what she said, but how she said it.

[Prinapocalypse]

@Red - Yeah using examples like that isn't that great imo, since it kind of comes off as sounding condescending. I know you probably didn't mean it like that though.

And the reason I never used any examples is because I was more expressing my disagreement with the way science does things on certain matters. See below:

The thing I really dislike is theories being taken as fact. But as you pointed out, that's basically what they're considered. But as Jericho mentioned, theories are proven wrong on occasion, so it's kind of a contradiction.

I know why science does it, but I simply can't agree with ruling out plausible possibilities, like they do. Of course there's usually no facts, so it's understandable that they wouldn't give it as much credibility. Theories can be filled with conjecture though, which is another thing I don't really like.

Anyway, I didn't really want to reply again, since I wasn't trying to prove anything in the first place, I was just pointing out why I disagreed with article and it spiraled out of control from there.

[Redhorse]

@vampko: lol, oh.

Perhaps, but aren't theories proven wrong from time to time?
So, should I have used the word "hypothesis"?

Points:
You get +2 for the text wall and -1 for asking about points~

Not really. They aren't incorrect; they're superseded by another theory that has even more evidence behind it. That tends to happen when we make new discoveries and have to change the way we look at things entirely. Here you go, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded ... c_theories

Yay! ^^

ninja'd but I'll have to come back later, due to lack of time

[Redhorse]

Back!

Yeah using examples like that isn't that great imo, since it kind of comes off as sounding condescending. I know you probably didn't mean it like that though.

I am grateful for the understanding, then ~

The thing I really dislike is theories being taken as fact. But as you pointed out, that's basically what they're considered. But as Jericho mentioned, theories are proven wrong on occasion, so it's kind of a contradiction.

As I explained, the word "theory" is used incorrectly in everyday conversations. And then people have the gall to try and use this as some sort of justification for saying, "Well, it isn't proven, and therefore it doesn't matter and could easily be proved false." (I mean seriously, people? C'mon. -_- ) They don't bother learning about the theories, they just take one look at that word and suddenly they think they have the high ground. Because the way regular people use it is "Oh, I have a theory as to how something happened." And what people mean by that is that they've thought of a possible conclusion to draw from an inconclusive amount of evidence. This concept of the word would actually be closer to the word "hypothesis" in science. And contrary to the usual thinking, hypothesis =/= theory. A scientific theory is an explanation supported by a large amount of evidence from various different fields. Basically, it's what happens when the vast majority of scientific evidence that comes from completely different areas and fields all point towards one obvious conclusion which is comprehensive and unifying. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an educated and testable conjecture made by individuals that has not yet been disproved, and is also supported. That's usually the point when other scientists attempt to see if evidence from other fields supports it and they begin testing it out with experiments.
If you want exact examples, there are many theories out there, but here are some of the most well-known, useful, oft-used:
The Theory of Relativity, Germ Theory of Disease, Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Cell Theory, etc. Without these, many things would be lost. Modern medicine depends on many of these, for example.

As for a contradiction, this seems to be a problem that stuff keeps coming back to: Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete. We build off of them over time. People look at things, and if they aren't "true", they automatically place them as utterly "false." That is JUST THE PROBLEM. People look at "right" and "wrong" as absolutes, when they aren't. They may be wrong or untrue in the flat, English term that doesn't really tell you anything, but the truth is that we just add more. We keep expanding theories. Here, allow me to illustrate:
You know flat-earth theory? The one that says the Earth is flat, not round? Well, as almost anyone educated nowadays will tell you it's false. And that's wrong. The curvature of the Earth every mile is 0.000126 on average, which is very close to 0 (flat). Basically, it wasn't wrong. The truth is that it was very nearly correct. And then we learned how incredibly large the Earth is and how, over the massive distance, that small number begins to add up. It's like calculus, you keep adding zeros til you get to infinity. And you would expect the answer to be zero, right? But what if all those zeros add to six? And sometimes they do, that's how we measure area and volume of strange shapes.
Or here's another example while it's on my mind (untrue, it is always on my mind, because it's physics and physics IS THE BEST, YAY! Forgive me if I talk to much, but physics is mah fave :33 ): the fundamental forces of the universe. You know them, right? Gravity, etc. Well, at first we figured out electricity and magnetism to be two of them, with their own separate theories. Then more evidence comes along, and we find out that they're really the same force! And as such, we have discovered electromagnetism. You see? We can call the same thing two different names, and then combine them, but that doesn't mean the old theories were false! It just means our theories were still missing something, and that does not equal incorrectness, as everyone thinks intuitively.

Theories can be filled with conjecture though, which is another thing I don't really like.

See "hypothesis" above ~

Anyway, I didn't really want to reply again, since I wasn't trying to prove anything in the first place, I was just pointing out why I disagreed with article and it spiraled out of control from there.

Thanks for doing so anyway ~ ^^
And I apologize for running my mouth. I just got an idea that I might've figured out what the difference in thinking might be and then I wouldn't shut up because I'm silly and I talk too much. =P

Question for you, though.

I know why science does it, but I simply can't agree with ruling out plausible possibilities, like they do. Of course there's usually no facts, so it's understandable that they wouldn't give it as much credibility.

Can it be plausible without backing from facts? (I've already talked about how much research is going on for different things, but still)

edit: Oh noooooooooooez! I double posted.
edit 2: Not sure if I sound condescending again, so this is a reminder to read it as though someone is passionate and excited! Not irritated and mean or whatever else it might possibly sound like. If it does. o: