Intelligence and Instinct

[phaedrus]

I've noticed that both Magellan and Theo get all tangled up over 'some' and 'all'. Then again, for a guy who confuses 'there' and 'their' and 'your' and 'you're' along with basic arithmetic it's hardly surprising.

When we make a hypothesis we don't know beforehand whether it is likely to be a good description of reality. (We call that 'true' for shorthand.) How do we find out whether a hypothesis is more or less likely to be true? We test its predictions. A hypothesis that has testable predictions is said to be falsifiable, that is, there exists the potential of some data that would show it false in principle. But even strongly confirmed hypotheses like Newton's law of gravity are still open to falsification and indeed observations have shown it to be an approximation rather than 'absolutely' true. Those people who think in only simplistic terms of true or false may now go back to drinking.

How are those laser experiments going in your garage, Theo? Disproved quantum theory yet? How about those dedicated studies of higher mathematics? Proven Einstein is an idiot yet?

[Theostudent]

Uh, no. I never clearly stated that, which is why you cannot quote me saying that.

You were saying?

There is no difference.

From;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=405

[Theostudent]

How are those laser experiments going in your garage, Theo? Disproved quantum theory yet? How about those dedicated studies of higher mathematics? Proven Einstein is an idiot yet?

Man, they are awesome, by dousing the prisms fully into the water, I can observe the laser completely, watching the behavior of the light is fascinating, I have also placed the prism onto white paper and observed the spectrum of light, a fascinating thing is, that between the blue and red, is a fully white area of the spectrum, the rainbow is not as I have seen it displayed.

I look forward to other fascinating observation in my future.

[ericmurphy]

You were saying?

There is no difference.

From;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=405

So there's no difference between scientific hypothesis that's true and a statement that's true. Makes perfect sense, given that a scientific hypothesis is a statement.

So how does that help you with YOUR hole, TS?

• All scientific hypotheses are falsifiable;
• No true statement is falsifiable; therefore
• All scientific statements are false.

I think your hole is a little harder to get out of than my pretty obviously correct statement, don't you?

And when are you going to recant your statement that I think all scientific hypotheses are true, TS? I mean, I've told you often enough that's a blatant misrepresentation of my statements.

Are you going to continue to lie about my position?

[Theostudent]

So there's no difference between scientific hypothesis that's true and a statement that's true. Makes perfect sense, given that a scientific hypothesis is a statement.

So how does that help you with YOUR hole, TS?

• All scientific hypotheses are falsifiable;
• No true statement is falsifiable; therefore
• All scientific statements are false.

I think your hole is a little harder to get out of than my pretty obviously correct statement, don't you?

And when are you going to recant your statement that I think all scientific hypotheses are true, TS? I mean, I've told you often enough that's a blatant misrepresentation of my statements.

Are you going to continue to lie about my position?

Just wow, Eric, so, I take it you think you did not state that their is no difference?

I wonder how a mind like yours works, or should I say, does not work.

Here is a bonus truth;

Water being wet is a human perception, it is not a truth about the physical world.

P.S. Hypothesis, which are propositions, are not true or false statements, until confirmed, one or the other, at which point, they become true or false statements, not propositions.

[ericmurphy]

Just wow, Eric, so, I take it you think you did not state that their is no difference?

Here's the deal, TS. I can see how, reading that one statement from me in isolation, you could believe I think all scientific hypotheses are true. That's an idiotic belief, but (coming from you) sort of understandable.

But I have told you, over and over again, that that is in fact NOT my position. I have stated, repeatedly, that my position is that some scientific hypotheses turn out to be (at least provisionally) true, and that some scientific hypotheses turn out to be false. I have said that, over and over and over and over again.

But you continue to claim I say otherwise. You continue to claim I think all scientific hypotheses are true. Why do you keep saying that, when it's obviously false? I'm not sure how the moderators here will see things, but I simply cannot see your continued misrepresentation of my position as anything other than a knowing lie, a knowing lie I have corrected you on at least half a dozen times.

In the meantime, I have pointed out that by your own stated positions, you must believe that all scientific hypotheses are false. Is that in fact your position? You've never stated whether it is or it isn't. Now would be a good time to clarify.

I wonder how a mind like yours works, or should I say, does not work.

I wonder how you can think of yourself as anything other than a liar.

Here is a bonus truth;

Water being wet is a human perception, it is not a truth about the world.

So water is NOT wet? Is that your position?

Yes or no.

[Theostudent]

So water is NOT wet? Is that your position?

Water being wet is a perception of mind, not a physical attribute.

Have fun with your "science".

[ericmurphy]

Answer the question, TS:

Do you deny that water is wet?

Everything is human perception. Humans do not have unmediated access to reality.

Have fun with your stupidity.

[Theostudent]

Everything is human perception.

Keep the faith in the physical world Eric.

Water being wet is a perception of mind, the proportion of oxygen and hydrogen that makes up a water molecule, is a physical attribute.

Hope that helps.

[ericmurphy]

Do you believe all scientific hypotheses are false, TS?

[Theostudent]

Do believe all scientific hypotheses are false, TS?

No, hypothesis are not classified as true or false, they are propositions, when a hypothesis has a confirmation, then it becomes true or false.

I already explained that Eric, sorry you missed it.

I like your all is mind philosophy Eric, rather intriguing.

[ericmurphy]

No, hypothesis are not classified as true or false, they are propositions, when a hypothesis has a confirmation, then it becomes true or false.

Well, that was pretty nonsensical. When a hypothesis has a confirmation, it then becomes false? Is that so?

I already explained that Eric, sorry you missed it.

Your "explanation" makes no sense. We still have the same problem:

All scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable;
No true statement is falsifiable; therefore
No scientific hypothesis is true.

You still haven't gotten out of this little conundrum, TS. Try again.

[Theostudent]

Well, that was pretty nonsensical. When a hypothesis has a confirmation, it then becomes false? Is that so?

Yes, propositions can be confirmed false.

Such as: All swans are white.

Hope that helps.

Your "explanation" makes no sense. We still have the same problem:

I am not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.

[ericmurphy]

Yes, propositions can be confirmed false.

Such as: All swans are white.

Hope that helps.

Not really. We've still got some problems here. You say, let's see, "Hypotheses are not classified as either true or false," but then, in the same sentence, you say "when a hypothesis has a confirmation [sic], then it becomes true or false."

Well, which is it? Can hypotheses be true or false, or can they not be true or false?

It can't be both.

And still the same problem:

All scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable;
No true statements are falsifiable; therefore
No scientific hypotheses are true.

It's going to take you a while to get out of this one, TS. But don't worry; I'm never going to get tired of pointing out this little problem for you.

So one of your statements has to go:

Either scientific hypotheses don't need to be falsifiable,

or

Some true statements are falsifiable.

Or, of course, they could both go.

Let me know what you come up with.

[Theostudent]

Not really. We've still got some problems here. You say, let's see, "Hypotheses are not classified as either true or false," but then, in the same sentence, you say "when a hypothesis has a confirmation [sic], then it becomes true or false."

Well, which is it? Can hypotheses be true or false, or can they not be true or false?

It can't be both.

And still the same problem:

All scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable;
No true statements are falsifiable; therefore
No scientific hypotheses are true.

It's going to take you a while to get out of this one, TS. But don't worry; I'm never going to get tired of pointing out this little problem for you.

So one of your statements has to go:

Either scientific hypotheses don't need to be falsifiable,

or

Some true statements are falsifiable.

Or, of course, they could both go.

Let me know what you come up with.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2&postcount=95

P.S. Hypothesis, which are propositions, are not true or false statements, until confirmed, one or the other, at which point, they become true or false statements, not propositions.

Be well everyone.