|
|
|
| I found a way to win the lottery! |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
 |
Invisible dragons. Boo-ya. -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
You cannot ever prove anything, true or false, in the sense that everybody everywhere will agree with you. But you can prove things, true or false, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Although it is usually much harder to prove a negative.) If there's no rational reason for, purpose for, or evidence of something existing, then I won't believe it... not because I don't think there's any possibility at all, but because I'm generally not in the business of making things more complex than they need to be. |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
Matthew Leverton said: I'm generally not in the business of making things more complex than they need to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor [EDIT] This was hiding under my bed! {"name":"toddlerpede-doll.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/27687e9ec9736d8fc3f3e80431263ae6.jpg","w":500,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/27687e9ec9736d8fc3f3e80431263ae6"} They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
 |
David McCallum said: I've never understood this definition of science that involves being unable to prove a negative. A casual glance reveals that there are no dragons in my room. If anyone doesn't believe it, they can come and see for themselves. And yet, I'm not supposed to say that there are no dragons in my room? It seems very similar to the skeptic's challenge, which states that there's no way we can ever know if anything is true. It could be an illusion, you could be insane, etc. And yet, there's a very compelling answer to the skeptic's challenge: The skeptic is urging us to consider reality in an improbable way. Since we are interested in knowing "the truth", we take that which is most probable, and use it for our basis of understanding. We discard things which are extremely improbable, unless the time comes when they seem more likely, at which point we may call them a new "truth". I think this is the only real way to understand the universe without descending into madness. Thus, it is true that there are no dragons in my room. Scientifically speaking, you'd have to come up with definitions of "dragon", "room", and "there are no X in Y". You will have to define this in terms of something, and that something needs to be defined in terms of another something, and so on, until you reach a point where your somethings are so basic and simple that you can state them as your set of axiomae. Since an axiom, by definition, cannot be proven wrong nor false, the best thing you can hope your scientific theory will prove is that there are no dragons in your room provided that your set of axiomae is true. Your theory will be more plausible the smaller and simpler your axiomae. --- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Tobias Dammers said: Since an axiom, by definition, cannot be proven wrong nor false, the best thing you can hope your scientific theory will prove is that there are no dragons in your room provided that your set of axiomae is true. It is axiomatic that even small children know what are "dragons", "rooms" and what it means to be "in" something. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
ax·i·o·mat·ic ˌæksiəˈmætɪk Saurfang was finally defeated by an orc with axiomatic arms. -- |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
ax·i·o·mat·ic/ˌaksēəˈmatik/Adjective The earlier definition was the King James version. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
|
|
