You're viewing part of a thread.
Fuck off liar, or answer one of the many actual questions I posed you, or just read the papers I sent you.
No, you won't do any of that so just fuck off.
Which questions haven't I answered?
About being a professional scientist? I'm not, but that doesn't matter.
I've answered every other question. And your paper about astrology continues to be irrelevant to my point: the fundamental uncertainty of science.
I suspect you're lying, since you claim to be a professional scientist, yet you:
-
Constantly conflate accuracy with precision
-
Believe in unfalsifiable truths in the empirical sciences
-
Think that credentials themselves are evidence
That's all middle school stuff.
Watch the video. It's a lecture at a global top 20 university that you might recognize, and reiterates all the points I've been making:
That absolute certainty is fundamentally unattainable in the empirical sciences (he even explicitly includes evolution and gravity). That the only absolute certainty possible is in the formal sciences (math, logic, etc) because they are defined not observed.
Or do you think you know more about this topic than this professor, who teaches this exact topic, at a global top 20 university?
I’m not, but that doesn’t matter.
Took you long enough, and yes, it does matter.
I’ve answered every other question.
You have not, because I asked many, many times what science have you done?
Constantly conflate accuracy with precision
Wrong, I have already informed you you fell for the Barnum effect.
Believe in unfalsifiable truths in the empirical sciences
The existence of gravity is unfalsifiable, the explanation for it is. And when people discuss lack of absolute knowledge, that is what they are talking about, and that is what the video is talking about.
Think that credentials themselves are evidence
Nope, that's you lacking the ability to read once again.
And when are you going to read those papers I sent you?
And when are you going to read those papers I sent you?
Right after you watch that video, which you clearly didn't because he discusses gravity and explicitly disagrees with your conclusion.
Already did, I agree with many of his points, and disagree with others.
When are you going to answer my question now?
or are you going ti finally fuck off, or is your autism making that impossible?
No no, he is the expert, he knows more than you. That was not an opinion piece, that was an 100-level introduction to the fundamental principles of scientific knowledge. He has better credentials, therefore he's correct, isn't that what you said? That's how science works in your imagination.
Regardless, I'm gonna go with an expert over some random labcoat mixologist who doesn't understand the basic precepts of the scientific method.
You're beyond saving, a symptom of the brain rot. I'm sorry for that, I wish you, and those like you, were salvageable. This conversation wasn't really to save you, but to warn bystanders. I think this is pretty far past the point where anyone else will go, so it serves no further purpose. Consider sitting in on HPS100, it's never too late to learn. Though I assume your autism makes that impossible.
He said as an example against gravity being non-absolute was an example of imagining a universe with floating islands. But that isn't a universe without gravity, that universe has gravity holding together the rocks of the, mountain and the planet above it. Sure gravity works differently than expected, but that is the theory of gravity, not the existence of it.
A universe with no gravity is one in which all matter just flies away from all other matter endlessly. No stars, no planets, no chemical reactions. And such a universe cannot exist with life in it, so you cannot logically imagine a universe with us in it that has no gravity. Thus we can know gravity does exist. It's the how gravity works that is up for debate in question, but it does absolutely exist.
You're too stupid to talk to it seems, because no where does he say gravity itself does not absolutely exist, but says that our ideas of how gravity exists could be wrong.
He then goes on to show that even the most basic sensory statements, e.g. "There is an apple in front of me" are subject to the hypothetical fallibility of the senses. He reiterates that any synthetic proposition, even the most basic observation supported by mountains of evidence, is still impossible to assert with 100% certainty. Evidence for the existence of gravity is still within the purview of synthetic propositions, and therefore falsifiable in base principle.
I abandoned physics (I know more about our understanding of gravity than you do) in a professional capacity in favor of mathematics (I know more about absolute certainty than you do). That is the only actual realm of absolute certainty (and that is only because it is a collection of definitions, not a synthesis of observations). You do not understand basic logic. You use certainty carelessly, which is horrific mental hygiene for a scientist. You conflate science with the political bureaucracy which surrounds it.
Hop over to IHPST and tell them your perspectives. I'm done, maybe they can undo the damage.
the hypothetical fallibility of the senses
Which is just bullshit philosophical crap. In order to even have senses there must be gravity in the universe, so once again it is impossible to logically imagine a universe without gravity.
And as I have said before science is just a way to understand our perceived reality. If all our senses are flawed it does not matter because that is how we collectively perceive the universe, and that is what science is trying to explain.
I abandoned physics (I know more about our understanding of gravity than you do)
I took undergrad physics too, so doubt. And you're still a lair, because you would have brought up your physics background way earlier in the conversation if it was at all real.
Which is just bullshit philosophical crap
As I said, mixologist in a lab coat.
I took undergrad physics too, so doubt.
QM? Relativity? Doubt
you would have brought up your physics background way earlier in the conversation if it was at all real.
Why? Personal credentials are not evidence. Plus, as repeatedly demonstrated, you would've called me a liar anyway.
I'm done with your rot-addled, pseudo a-priori nonsense.
Tell me how a universe without gravity could exist with us in it then. Because that's the bar set for whether something can be claimed as fact.
QM? Relativity?
Yep, covered both.
Why?
Because prior knowledge is relevant to any discussion. And I didn't call you a liar until you lied about doing a double blind astrology report. I said you fell for the Barnum effect before that, which you have yet to acknowledge.
Why skirt that issue? Why refuse to engage with the possibility you fell for the Barnum effect?
I’m done
Oh please be true. Because you've said that half a dozen times now, and I've made it quite clear I would be happy for that to be the case.
-