The Zeitgeist Movement

"

Zidjian wrote:

Pretty sure he was using that as an example. How about instead of subtracting from the discussion add something to it. You keep complaining about people not knowing scientific concepts and I'm starting to wonder where you got your education.

I'm trying to subtract the idiocy, not add to it. You can't try to make an idiotic conversation smart, you have to take the idiocy out first.

Ya i am done with this one.

"

Septile wrote:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

A scientific theory is not a fact. To suggest that is absurd. A fact is a proposition that represents a true state of affairs. For example:

"Peter was born April 5th, 1986 at 3am."

-or-

"A square has four sides, the angles of which equal 90 degrees"

A scientific theory is not a fact (although a scientific theory is certainly supported by facts). If all theories were facts, then no theory could ever be amended in the future. You cannot change facts, you can change theories. Thus, they are not the same thing.

Further if all theories are facts, then when we have conflicting theories we have conflicting facts. Facts cannot conflict. It cannot both be raining and not raining at the same time, the world cannot be both flat and round at the same time, the dinosaurs cannot exist and not exist with man at the same time.

Did you get your education in a Texas public school?

Learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and when you learn that you can get back to pretending that you know what you're talking about. (Creationism(man co-existed with dinosaurs) isn't a scientific theory)

Not sure where the hostillity is coming from. Have no idea what's wrong with Texas schools either...

Anywho, a hypothesis is more or less, an educated guess. A theory, is more or less, an explanation that seems to conform with a certain set of propositions.

Now, since we have that distinction in place. What was your point?

PS. I never said "creationism" was a scientific theory. I said that it cannot be the case that man both did and did not coexist with dinosaurs. I made that point only as a further illustration of how facts/theories are not the same thing, because you had originally said:

"A scientific theory is a fact, you dolt"

Which, is not the case at all. I can give further examples why.

If a scientific theory is a fact then at one point both the helocentric and geocentric models of the universe were BOTH correct. They would both be correct, because as you said, a "scientific theory" and a "fact" are the same. However, that is clearly not the case because one theory says that the sun is at the center, and the other places the earth at the center. Facts, cannot disagree with each other. Theories can. Facts and theories are not the same thing.

A theory CAN represent a fact (of course). But not all theories do. You are conflating the two terms, and in so doing, you make them interchangeable when they are not.

A theory is something that isn't proved, if it's proved, then it's not a theory anymore.
A theory IS NOT a fact. But a theory is something that has been studied, based on scientific researches. We can say it's a possibility, like string theory or big bang theory, or all the theories of psychology (which I study) we can't prove them, and will probably never. It's something that can be, not for sure, but anyway we don't have a better explanation.
A hypothesis is the step before theory, it's what we think is possible, an hypothesis hasn't been tested it's just an idea.
But a fact can become a theory, if someday someone come and show us that 1+1=3 it'll become a theory, as well as the classic 1+1=2 cause both are right. Which is impossible, so if no one can prove that one of these two is wrong, then they both became possible -> Theory. That's what a theory/fact/hypothesis is.

So i don't know where you see, hear or i don't know what : "A scientific theory is a fact, you dolt", but it's nothing more than bullshit, you should read something on human psychology and you'll understand what is a theory and why it can't be a fact.

And for Zeitgeist, it's an hypothesis (I will not say it's impossible to be gentle), because it will never be proved, cause humans are not logical, (if it were, then we should be able to know what someone will do, when and why. Once again, psychology answers you) they live in groups, where everyone is influenced by others to become a group with a same general idea, but everyone is different, and only one person in the group is enough to destroy it or change his way of thinking.

The day humans will all think the same way of something, we'll no longer be humans.


Sorry for my english, i'm not very good :) I hope i'm clear enough for you to understand what i want to say. And to finish, humans are irrational creatures with no predetermined behaviour, you can do whatever you want to change that fact, to push them in a specific way, and you'll be crushed when the first one will stand up, followed by others.

Thanks Powlin for backing me up on this! I agree with everything you said, except the part about human beings not being pre-determined. I don't believe in free will, but that debate is another matter altogether lol.

A theory is an idea that makes predictions about the physical world around us, using facts known prior to the prediction. The theory is bourne out by the repeating testing of the predictions it makes, a stronger theory surviving a multitude of falsification attempts.

So my choice of wording didn't ideally convey what I meant, big deal. That's what happens when you make posts at the crack of dawn. Doesn't take away from the fact that you guys don't understand how science works at all, yet continue to act as if you do because you took some college course on basic human psychology or some shitty scientific theory course. FYI, psychology is only just recently becoming fully accepted by the scientific community. I bolded and underlined an important word in an attempt to help you understand what I'm saying because I fear you'll misinterpret it much like you have practically everything else.

Septile,

If we misunderstood you because you made a post using the wrong words because you were tired, I fail to see how we are to blame.

The original problem was centered around your claim that Scientific theory = fact. Apparently, you have acknowledged your mistake. Having done so, I think your other comments about us "not understanding science at all" is a little odd. Seems like we understood it well enough to clarify your original statment and have you agree.

I am not a scientist. The bulk of my courses in undergraduate were based around philosophy, as was my masters. Discounting what people say because they "learned it in class" is an absurd stance to take. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most of what you know (including your wealth of knowledge regarding science) was learned in a class somewhere.

I am curious how you think humans are pre-determined. Do you mean like a pre-determined fate or actions? I am not really picking up on what you mean.

Zidijan,

I think that free will (in the libretarian sense of the word I.E. we can do whatever we want) is false. I do believe, of course, that we operate under the idea that our choices matter (this is called Doxastic free will).

The reasons I have for rejecting the notion of LFW (libretarian Free Will) are many. Here are a couple.

1. Currently I can rule out the possibility of an elephant walking through the room I am currently in. I can rule that possibility out for a multitude of reasons.

a. elephants don't live in chicago
b. elephants can't fit through the door to this room.
c. elephants can't take elevators
etc...

Now, what this shows is that possibillities can be ruled out given our knowledge pertaining to the possibility in question. I believe, that the only difference between knowing that (A) an elephant won't walk through the room I am currently in and (B) I am going to have a pepsi tomorrow at 4pm, is that I have more knowledge concering A then I do B. However, simply because I know more about A then B, doesn't mean that B is completley indeterminent (that is to say it isn't the case the B can't be known NOW, only that I don't have the resources to know B now).

2. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian conception of God (an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent being) then I would say that free will is impossible because that being (God) knows now (today) what I will do in the future. If that being knows today what I will do tomorrow, then I don't have a choice.

Now, some people say that simply because God knows what I will do doesn't mean he CAUSES me to do it. I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that God does know now what I will do in the future. So, still, no choice is open for me.

3. If you don't believe in God then I still find no room for free will. After all, recent discoveries have shown that what we say/do is chosen subconciously milliseconds before we physically say/do whatever it is. If our actions are causally determined by our subconcious then we have no power to "choose" anything, as we don't have access to our subconcious (of course).

Further, I believe that all concious activities can be reduced to the interplay between chemicals in the brain. I have no controll over those interactions. That is why people who are depressed can't simply will themselves out of it.

4. I believe that the truth values of propositions are not dependent on time. That is, that whatever is true is true and whatever is false is false. Regardless of time, or whether or not anyone is present to judge the truth or falsity of a claim. Consider this: A million years from now all that will exist is a piece of paper, and on the paper there will be written the word Cat. That proposition is either true or false NOW, we needn't wait a million years and then check the paper. Of course, we can check the paper then to see if that word is present, but that will only verify which is correct (true/false) not that it wasn't true/false before we checked it.

The main support for (4) that I have is the law of excluded middle. Aristotle famously found that for any proposition that proposition is NECESSARILY either true or if not true, false. Therefore, for every proposition describing any state of affairs (including the states we find ourselves engaged in) those to are either true or false. Due to that fact, and coupled with my belief that truth values are not dependent on time, it cannot be the case that we can do other then what is true now. Thus, we have no LFW.

"

"Currently I can rule out the possibility of an elephant walking through the room I am currently in. I can rule that possibility out for a multitude of reasons."

"a. elephants don't live in Chicago
b. elephants can't fit through the door to this room.
c. elephants can't take elevators "

Ok, now as you may or may not know if there is a box and you cannot see under it then you have to accept than anything can be under it. You can make reasonable assumptions as to what may or may not be under it, but you still have no way of knowing unless you peak under the box. According to how i think.

Now for your elephant example. Elephants do indeed live in Chicago in zoos. Now about it getting into your house. Let say there is a massive earthquake in Chicago the particular earthquake hits near your building causing the building to collapse miraculously you survive the incursion and can see the street from the shattered wall. Just then an escaped elephant getting transported from a zoo triumphantly walks in. However as elephants are not carnivorous you escape unharmed if slightly shaken.

All of these events if you have notice are completely ridiculous, but in the realm of possibilities. You cannot rule out something because it is unlikely however.

On the note of god i was raised Christian, but find it harder and harder to take seriously. The more i learn about other religions the more they tend to all look the same and have the same shortcomings. I currently hold no current beliefs about a higher power because i believe i don't know enough in order to make that judgment so i am staying undecided in that matter.