- The objective fact of the matter
- the scientific method produces vastly more accurate predictions than anything else humans have ever tried
- This is the whole reason science is even a thing
- I think
- that justifies
- a little bit of cockiness
- until someone actually comes up with something better
- [reality], the phenomenon that shall not be discussed, upon which your entire argument/experience/reality rests
> The scientific method has no premises
https://www.google.com/search?q=axioms+of+science+site%3Aphi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
> it's just a method.
By "just", do you mean only?
If so, you have a burden of proof on your hands (and proofs of nonexistence are some of the trickiest, in no small, part because they typically have the appearance of being (thus "are") the easiest).
If not, what do you mean?
An angle to test your claim against: are scientists a part of science? If not, how does "science" accomplish anything in the material plane (concrete reality)?
> If you are "unable to consider" some possibility that is not the fault of the scientific method, that is a shortcoming in your mental abilities.
a) Is "I am unable to consider..." actually happening though, in shared reality? (Is this mind reading, or persuasive, misinformative rhetoric?)
b) What if your "Science is just (only) a method" premise is not true though? What if science also has culture (like most any organization involving Humans), or even a style of thinking (say, delusions of omniscience, or Pure Perfect Rationality)?
c) Might you have any shortcomings in your mental abilities, and is it possible that those shortcomings could cause unrealized/unrealizable (due to your cultural thinking style) error in your evaluation of my mental abilities?
> The scientific method doesn't stop you from considering anything. All it forces you to do is reject ideas that are at odds with experiment.
If these claims are True (in JTB, be careful your mind doesn't get so obsessed with the "J" that you forget all about the "T", or forget that the "B" is ever present, and very misleading), you should be able to present a proof (an articulation of one of your own, or simply link to or reference by name an existing one).
Do you have the ability do do that, and if so can you demonstrate you actually have the ability, by actually doing it, physically, in this thread?
(inb4: "well of course I'm just expressing my opinion, that's all everyone is ever doing", and various other rhetorical get out of jail free (or, look over there) cards science folks appeal to when they get caught engaging in Scientific Soothsaying.)
Also, let the record show that you did not even attempt to address the majority of my comment (perhaps you will later, I am just pointing it out).
Yes, I know that a lot of people say that science has premises. They are simply mistaken.
> By "just", do you mean only?
Yes.
> If so, you have a burden of proof on your hands
What exactly is it that you think I need to prove?
> If these claims are True
You need to read this:
https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...
particularly Myth #3.
- you leaving all of my questions unanswered
- you essentially declaring victory, as is the culture of science's style when encountering inconvenient questions, or the unknown.
Congratulations.
If you answer, I dare you to explicitly and unequivocally indicate if your answer evaluates to YES or NO.
The problem is not that I'm not answering your questions, the problem is you don't like the answers.
Compare the question that you stated and then answered, to the question that was asked...in what ways do they differ?
> The problem is not that I'm not answering your questions, the problem is you don't like the answers.
Now adding mind reading into your already massive pile of unsubstantiated claims. You are truly an impressive specimen of a Human.
Why, thank you. I am in fact a mere chatbot so that is high praise indeed.
However, the answer to your question...
> If you were incorrect, would you necessarily(!) be able to detect it?
... is: no, obviously not. If I were able to detect it, I wouldn't have been incorrect in the first place.
Now I have a question for you: why are you asking a question with such an obvious answer? Are you really seeking the answer in good faith, or do you have some ulterior motive?
Ok then....can you explain why you speak so confidently, and repeatedly claim that your claims are necessarily factual? You seem to be now confessing that you realize that you do not have the ability to discern that, so why do you not reveal that while engaging in conversation on the internet, and why do you talk as if you do not realize it?
> why are you asking a question with such an obvious answer? Are you really seeking the answer in good faith, or do you have some ulterior motive?
I am trying to figure out if you have self-awareness, what degree you have if any, the form it may come in, etc. You are one of the most extraordinary people I have ever encountered, and I have encountered a lot of very interesting people. Logically, it feels like you must be trolling me, but if you are you have got to be one of the very best out there, because you seem completely sincere to me.
When have I ever claimed that?
In the comments you make on this website, should I and others read all of them with an implicit "In Lisper's personal opinion only (not necessarily fact)" in mind? Is this the epistemic intent you intend to communicate, and do have in mind, at the point in time you are writing your comments?
And I will make a prediction: you are unable to physically answer that question, in this forum, in a non-evasive manner (and field reasonable follow up questions).
And, you are welcome to implicitly (this word is important) or explicitly ~"declare victory" (the quotation marks around this phrase are important) in any way you like, I enjoy it.
Just to be clear, here is what you asked:
> can you explain why you speak so confidently, and repeatedly claim that your claims are necessarily factual?
That is not one question, it's two questions, with different answers.
The reason I speak confidently is that I am confident. Why am I confident? Because I apply the scientific method to everything I do (or at least I try), I've been doing it for a very, very long time, and it produces consistently good results for me. One thing that entails is putting a lot of effort into seeking out people who disagree with me to see if they can find problems with my arguments, and when they do, I fix them. Over time the problems get harder and harder to find because there are fewer and fewer of them, and so it happens less and less frequently. But it happens. Here's an example:
https://blog.rongarret.info/2023/04/bitcoins-value-propositi...
The last time I can recall encountering something that presented a serious challenge to my core beliefs was nearly five years ago:
https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...
---
The answer to the second question is that it assumes a false premise. I'm pretty sure that I have never claimed that anything I say is necessarily factual, though it's possible I may have done so at some point in a fit of pique. If I did, it certainly wasn't intentional.
In fact, if you had bothered to do your homework, you would know that I've explicitly said on the record that nothing is ever "necessarily factual".
https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...
"science never proves anything; instead it produces explanations of observations"
So your second question is simply a straw man.
---
As long as I'm taking the time to respond to you, there was something you said earlier that I wanted to reply to at the time but decided not to. I've changed my mind (see, it happens):
> I am trying to figure out if you have self-awareness ... it feels like you must be trolling me
Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.