ydoaPs

I second swansont's post. The OP needs a blue"[citation needed]".

! Moderator Note With the amount of soapboxing, speculation, and misrepresentation of math and science in this thread, this thread is beyond saving. It's past time that this thread has died. Thread closed.

Graphs are maths.

Popcorn Sutton has been suspended for 3 days due to persistent thread hijacking.

! Moderator Note If you feel a post requires moderation, please use the report button. Any personal advice on posting is off-topic in threads not about posting advice. Such conversations should be conducted via PM.

! Moderator Note That's bordering on inappropriate. Remember to be civil.

! Moderator Note Remember to stay civil. Keep the discussion about the topic; not the people.

! Moderator Note You are not a doctor. Do not give medical advice.

! Moderator Note Split from Heads Up on Suicide

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

! Moderator Note Off-topic speculative nonsense split from on-topic speculative nonsense.

! Moderator Note Posts split from Genetic Manipulation and Perfection

! Moderator Note Off-topic discussion moved to Speculations

This pinned topic is not a continuation of a locked thread. It began as a reply to an off-topic part of a thread (and, thus, likely would have been moved into its own thread anyway). Furthermore, as it explicitly says in the OP, it turned into more than that. Now, let's look at why you're wrong.....again. I'm actually not wrong at all. The OP is simply a historical survey of the evolution of thought in Philosophy of Science. Each view is accurately represented, and that includes Popper's despite your misinterpretation of what he said. Your quote: "It is true that I have used the terms 'elimination', and even 'rejection' when discussing 'refutation'. But it is clear from my main discussion that these terms mean, when applied to a scientific theory, THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AS A CONTENDER FOR THE TRUTH--THAT IS, REFUTED, but not necessarily abandoned." (emphasis mine) You're confusing epistemological acceptance with pragmatic acceptance. That's a rookie mistake one can make when they learn about people's position via Wikipedia instead of their actual works. Karl Popper most definitely held that a theory is proven to be wrong and should be rejected wholesale "as a contender for the truth" upon falsification. His view is completely wrong, as shown by the Duhem problem and the more correct version of the Lakatosian Research Programme as put forth by Dorling and Redhead-like I said. I did no such thing. Again, you show a shallow understanding of the issue. It's true that the Bayesian approach includes frequentism within it. However, if you'd have learned about it via the literature rather than via Wikipedia, you'd know that in the philosophy of statistics debate, the frequentists overwhelmingly tend to reject Bayesianism wholesale because they don't think of probability the same way.

! Moderator Note Let's remember to be civil.

Because natural language is incapable of doing it. You derive length contraction from how magnetic and electric fields interact using only English. Then I'll use math. Let's see which is better. Make sure you derive it precisely enough that we can take measurements to test your derivation against reality.

! Moderator Note moved to speculations

I tried to fix that for you. It didn't work, though.

Whether or not they naturally *do* is irrelevant as we know humans aren't rational without help. Whether or not they *ought to* is a different question which is solved by Cox's theorem. Yes, if your credences don't obey the Kolmogorv axioms, you're being irrational.

If faith had a method, and if that method is backed by mathematical epistemology (the stuff I do), then you'd be correct. But faith has no such method, so, once again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Bayesian Epistemology can be derived (quite easily, actually) from the Kolmogorov axioms which are derivable from Cox's axioms and basic sentential logic. This mathematical epistemology tells us exactly how evidence confirms/disconfirms things. You are completely wrong. Or, hey, let's see you argue that the Kolmogorov axioms are inconsistent. Probably, yes. Math. Yes, you can. All you have to do is not switch back and forth between definitions and pretend they are the same thing. Nothing trumps the rational mind. That's the point of rationality. But let's go with your thing. Martin Luther was a long time ago. And so was the Bible. Let's discard them. The other people are still alive.

Which we can't do. Any perception, BY DEFINITION is of the phenomena rather than the noumena. It doesn't matter if you live in reality and know that we can only perceive things via sensory organs, or if you live in your imaginary world where we have the magic ability to sense things without sensation. If you can sense it, it's the phenomena-that's what 'phenomena' means. If you're going to use big words to try to look smart, know what they mean. You're the one who brought up (and is butchering) Kant. No we didn't. You cannot know falsehoods, and that is a falsehood. There are (maybe, the very definition of the noumena means we can't prove it exists) two aspects of ontic entities, but that in know way means that both are knowable. In Sanskrit we have precise words for that which the English language doesn't have, its known as Antharmukh and Bahirmukh. That was wrong the first time you claimed it, and it's wrong now. If only the people would listen to the philosophers in the forum about philosophy even half as much as they do the physicist about physics.

I'm just bumping this to get a larger sample for the poll.

That made me immediately think of: "Without defining a reference, it's like asking, 'What the difference between a duck?'".

I would rep this like six more times if I could. That reminds me of the end of Tim Minchin's "Storm":

Which as Kant (who coined the term) points out, is necessarily beyond evidence. Any belief about the noumena other than that (and things derivable from that) is by definition irrational since it is impossible for any belief about the noumena to meet the threshold for sufficient evidence. Per your distinction, this means religion as a whole is an irrational enterprise. Except that there's nothing you can know about it. You can't even know that it exists. ALL you can rationally have beliefs about is the phenomena. Indeed.