213374U

Neat. I'm D/L'ing now.

Well, it's cheaper than beer. And at least tomorrow I won't have a hangover.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a logical device. And there is no guarantee that any of this stuff can be explained through logic, or any other means for that matter.

I am not very fond of taking relativism to the extreme just for the sake of it. If we need to "agree" on certain things, we are effectively denying the existance of self-evident truths. I find it difficult and generally pointless to make conversation with people that like doing that. But then again, perhaps I'm just not as patient as you are. After all, I'm the local forum cowboy. My point exactly.

No. There is no leap of faith in considering the perceived reality as a static environment with a fixed set of rules. Science proves that. It is a yes-no situation. If those rules weren't true, we wouldn't be able to decipher them through mathematics and/or they wouldn't be able to predict the behavior of the physical world. Is the reality we perceive "real"? That is a whole different matter. Of course all of that has nothing to do with the fact that science is constantly renewing itself. But since the establishing of the modern scientific method, few theories have been completely discarded (if any). What happens is that those theories are just expanded. Relativity hasn't rendered classic mechanics obsolete, for instance. It just explains other scenarios that weren't even considered by Newton.

It does not really matter. The beauty of it is that, if you can express it in a set of equations, it's the same for you, me, your dog, or anything existing within the boundaries of the physical reality. It doesn't matter if what we are seeing or measuring isn't real, because science doesn't really deal with reality in a philosophical or transcendental sense. It just measures what is there, or what seems to be there, if you will. I understand your point, though. If you question reality as the dimension we seem to exist in, then obviously science isn't infallible anymore, since the premises on which it is based are no longer necessarily true. But since science only deals with that "apparent" reality, claiming that science doesn't work if we change the framework is a moot point, really.

No. Science is within reality just as maths are within logic. After all, science is little more than maths applied to the real world. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. What is the belief you must accept in the case of science?

I thought we had already agreed that science is independent from belief...

Not bad.

The degree to what religion affects people is beside the point. We are not discussing that (not any longer, anyway). I think we can all agree that a lack of independent thought is bad, regardless of what causes it. The fact that some people instrumentalize the notion of God for whatever purposes is not a valid argument to counter the possibility that such God might indeed exist. I don't believe in an "entity" that you can fathom as God. I think that is a simplification and a reminiscence of the old times. In my opinion it is just an easy way to answer the ultimate question: what is existance? However I don't discard the possibility that there may be something *beyond* the physical world we can measure, and probably beyond the reality governed by logic. I guess that would make me something of a "mystical agnosticist".

HA! And people were saying that Palps is not

Hmm. Mathematics have nothing to do with that. They are not negotiable. Oh how would I love to be so certain. But think for example of the light spectrum. If you could see in the UV and IR spectrums too, the world would be nothing like you think it is now. And that is because we know of other light frequencies that are invisible to us. But what about those other things that science hasn't fully covered yet? Our knowledge of the space-time continuum is a bit limited yet, for example. It is not unreasonable to think that there may be things that we don't even know about. So, taking things that you see as absolute just because you can see and touch them is just another belief. Plato illustrated this point quite nicely in his allegory of the cave.

There is no difference. You know, some guy said that "10 + 11 = 101", and he invented a whole new algebra. His rules are as true as the regular, decimal algebra. If you think you can build a rational system based on "2 + 1 = 4" go right ahead. You might earn a Nobel Prize and have your name written into the annals of History.

No. You see, math are built upon a framework called logic. Logic is a man-made abstract construct that obeys a few simple and well defined rules, which are not principles or postulates, but just instructions. As such, they don't need to be true from a transcendental standpoint (it wouldn't make sense), they just need to be clear. Since mathematics follow those rules, mathematics are always true within the logic framework they operate in. But it turns out that outside that framework, they are not only baseless, but also meaningless. And since they are fundamentally abstract, their relation with anything meaningful in the "real" world is not immediate and must be drawn by science. Mathematics are just a tool, they don't have a "sense" which you can discuss. They just are. And the reason this is that way is because we have defined them that way. The same reasoning goes for science, only their framework is the physical world. If you try to apply them outside of it, they don't make sense. It is reasonable to think that since we didn't define the physical reality, science, being a human tool to rationalize it, is not as accurate as mathematics.

No, not mathematics. Mathematics are a self-contained parcel of certainty. As he said, they just are.

Hold on, I'm not done yet. I don't think that any movies made me cry. Bambi perhaps, but I was just a little kid back then...

Agreed. However, it is undeniable that science works within the parameters it's confined to. Those parameters are nothing more than the physical reality we live in. It is not absurd to think that in time those parameters may be expanded, though. However, as things are now, I don't see how that would trascend to explaining other things such as those which philosophy or religion seek to "explain". That is not what I meant. And yes, people who try to take scientific approaches to that sort of transcendental stuff are just followers of another belief. That's what I meant when I said that I don't see why you would want to go and prove stuff in religion. Religion and science are not opposite words as some people seem to think. That doesn't preclude the fact that some outdated dogmas have been rendered obsolete by the advances of science. @WITHTEETH: Fair enough. That was just an example. As I said, I know nothing about it.

Fix'd.

You should do something about that unhealthy urge of yours to spam to death every thread in the boards...

I don't think it's the same. You don't believe in science. You are convinced of its validity by overwhelming evidence which is predicted through logical reasoning and mathematics. Okay, I admit it. I know nothing about string theory. But it seems to be a solid theory in that most of the scientific community accepts it. You may compare this to any believer swallowing what their local guru tells them, but nothing stops me from going and studying string theory, and if I can, proving it false. You can't really do the same with religion. I don't see why you would want to, anyway.

He reminds me of someone... "

Well, I'm certainly no Einstein, but since I can make use of the quote function several times in a single reply without the need to SPAM the forums with several posts in order to reply to a single post, while you seem unable to do the same, I am obviously closer to him than you. ) To someone with an intelligence as limited as yours, perhaps. But replying to each statement in an orderly, quoted, non-SPAMming manner, makes for tidy, easier to follow posts. And it keeps the boards cleaner. You see, if someone just didn't want to read the crap you call posts, they would just have to skip ONE post. But the way you do it, they have to skip half the page. Don't you dare question the POWARH of phrenology!

Not that you would ever do that, of course. "