this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
364 points (93.8% liked)

Comic Strips

12397 readers
2988 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The scientific method is a consequence of believing the world around you to be emprically provably real, not the other way around.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolute nonsense. That's like saying that you lose your voice in order to fill out a health insurance card as you wait for treatment. Don't put des hoarse before des carte.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well, drole response I suppose, but there's no way of applying the scientific method without first believing in the non-phenomenal world, so the scientific method can't act as the horse there.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Prove to me the spiritual world exists.

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not relevant to what they said. Is your sensory input actually telling you what you think was said?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Yes my senses match with the real world pretty well. If I need greater accuracy I just use equipment.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it is. If you are going to make claims about the spiritual world you should demonstrate existence first.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 0 points 5 months ago

I'm not talking about the spiritual world and I don't even really know what you mean by it.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, someone arguing that there's no objective reality WOULD claim that the best method to objectively prove reality depends on already believing in objective reality.

I've seen coins less circular than your logic.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

It never goes anywhere with them. They keep presenting useless skepticism until finally you admit that in theory you could be brain in a jar. Then they "win" and get to claim God.

I assume you are like me. I take the evidence and see where it goes. What they do is they throw away the evidence so they can get the result that they want.

These things break my theory

Me: my theory must be wrong.

Them: you can't really know anything.

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I didn't say anything about it being the best method, and just that something helps my case doesn't make my logic circular. You could say that it'd be circular to say "the scientific method relies on the real world existing, and the real world existing relies on the scientific method", but that's exactly what I'm saying is not the case; in fact, my whole point is that you can't use the scientific method to prove that the real world exists exactly for that reason. I literally typed "not the other way around". The results of the measurements you make of the non-phenomenal world exist themselves in the non-phenomenal world so they can't be proof that that world exists. I don't know how to put it in simpler terms!

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You don't have to believe in bullets to get shot in the leg.

Science doesn't involve beliefs. It involves measurement. There is reason why no one likes presups, so maybe stop being one

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Try measuring something without believing it exists and see how far you get. Belief is a binary so it's not like you can neither believe nor disbelieve in the thing you're measuring. Even besides that, science is very much about belief, because the scientific method implies that every new finding can be falsifiable. The theory of relativity is a very good example of that phenomenon.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Try measuring something without believing it exists and see how far you get.

Ok.

:reads his horoscope, takes an IQ test, speaks to a reiki healer, analysis of the fungi shei of his bedroom, using a dowsing rod, and gets his thetan level checked.

What do I win?

Belief is a binary so it’s not like you can neither believe nor disbelieve in the thing you’re measuring.

Assertion please prove this.