John Weiland wrote: not necessarily evolved for finding nor comprehending "truth".
Yes, the scientific method is flawed; I'm pretty sure you know that I know that and I bet most others here on the board know it also.
Tyler Ludens wrote:
Terry Ruth wrote: Here if you get a +1 or 2+ you must be right.
I think it just means you're popular, or a lot of people agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with being factually right or wrong. I've super disagreed with some things some people have posted, even though they get a ton of thumbs up.
Terry Ruth wrote:
What science or method are you referring to, be more specific? Post the flaw?
Terry Ruth wrote:Now we got a philosopher know it all
R Ranson wrote:Wow!
This conversation takes me back to my university days when the philosophy students would go down to the pub after class and watch the professors brawl it out....
(I'm removing this bit because it obviously upset some people as they took it to mean something not intended. I apologize for my mistaken words. Edited of my own free will because I feel bad that I was not able to communicate my meaning accurately.)
Boy am I ever glad this isn't the kind of discussion we have on the main forums.
Speaking about philosophy and the study of 'truth', fact and the nature of reality (or ontology as we call it in our ivory tower speak), here's a bit from Phil 101 that might interest you: Back in Aristotle's day, it was a known fact that all swans are white and because of this, they also knew to be the truth that there are no black swans. They knew this, as a fact, for almost two thousand years, using the kind mixture of logic and experience that would one day become the scientific method.
They had a theory: all swans are white/no swans are black.
They used their senses to look at the world around them: It's a swan, check, it's white, check. For almost two thousand years, every single swan they saw was white. There was no confirmed evidence to contradict the theory. So it was taken as fact and use in many texts and teachings as "this is a known truth of the universe" kind of example. Back then philosopher actually got out and a bout a bit, not just sat around having word wars in pubs.
Then one day...: someone said there was a
philosopher who didn't drinkblack swan.
The result: Everyone laughed at him and he was burned at the stake or something horrible.
Then another day: Someone else said there was a black swan. Fingers pointed, yelling, stones tossed, what have you. But one of the philosophers was listening in and it got him thinking that it would be so totally awesome to have not-white swans. (can you tell I'm paraphrasing here? I am.) He went out to look for these mythical black swans. He found them, but he was somewhat famous, so no one laughed at him, they listened and nodded and said mean things behind his back then ignored him.
As time continued: Lots of people start talking about these black swans, but since we know it as a categorically correct truth, there can be no black swans, so they were all laughed at and dismissed as liars. Over time the laughing got quieter and quieter.
An then...: somehow, people suddenly realized that not all swans are white. Some swans really are black. But they knew it all along, because of course there are black swans... see, there goes one now.
This is a very common pattern in the history of philosophy - the branch of study that eventually gave birth to science, and the scientific method. It's also why philosophers got rid of science about the same time as they realized there were black swans. I'm told it's just a coincidence, but what a coincidence. Saying things as categorical fact (as in Aristotle's The Categories, using the word in the philosophical sense), when later on they are proven to be not so, makes one look like an idiot.
More simply said, the 'fact' of gravity is still a 'theory'. We can get all technical about what the words mean, but even in the vernacular the meaning is quite clear.
This is exactly why it's so nice that Paul's requirements require us not to state something as the absolute truth or fact or the only way to do something. Just because we only have white swans when we look out the window, like they did in Aristotle's day, there may be some black swans swimming about a pond somewhere up in England just waiting to be discovered.
Please don't think I'm being deliberately hard on philosophers. Not all of them went out to drink with our group. The image of the drinking philosopher just made the story flow better. In fact, I find most philosophers to be a rather sobering bunch.
(edited for spelling and formatting)
R Ranson wrote:Thank you Terry.
Unintentionally, I did provide a good example of how moderation (self or external) can be useful. A phrase (or collection of phrases) used in one setting to mean a specific thing, can often mean something drastically different somewhere else.
It's actually one of the few things I regret about my education; they taught me to speak in a very subject specific way. When it comes to talking in public settings, some of these jargons or phrases mean completely different things. This creates a barrier to communication which makes conflict. The original goal of the forum/conversation is lost in semantics.
This is why I'm in favour of having moderated safe spaces, so we can overcome things like this language challenge and talk to each other as individuals. I'm also in favour of having un-moderated spaces, and lightly moderated spaces. In fact, in true permaculture style, I enjoy the diversity of moderated spaces, so long as we have the freedom to choose between them.
Rue Barbie wrote:Perhaps the moderator could also have taken the time to insert a link to the original thread into the first post of the new split thread so 'silly questions' (aka 'basic orientation') would not have to be asked and answered.
Burra Maluca wrote:Sounds like under-moderating to me.
If you can come up with some appropriate phrasing to go into a new first post, I'll see if I can find time to juggle the thread around later.
Rue Barbie wrote:
And usually a post is added to the first thread informing people where their posts have gone, or for people interested in that aspect of the conversation. So on the Toensmeier thread, the moderator would write a new post something like this:
(For a continuation of the discussion about 'large scale farmers', see http://www.permies.com/t/54761//large-scale-farmers-shift#455119 )
Rue Barbie wrote:
Something very simple so it doesn't take much time to do. Just add a phrase in parentheses (plus the name or initials of the moderator) at the very top of the first post of the new split thread. Something like this:
(This thread has been split from http://www.permies.com/t/54671//Eric-Toensmeier-author-Carbon-Farming )
Then those with an interest can check it out.