11-03-2011, 12:00 AM
To a certain extent i agree with you about treating all info as fiction until verified. Its a nice concept but actually insanely difficult to do and potentially futile even should we start the task.
When you say we should empirically test everything, what everything? gravity thermodynamics electromagnetics conductance, maths, time, mass, (and this is just from physics.) Then counter check and verify every single one of our empirical verification tools with every single other empirically tested item of data we have gathered.
Realistically its not possible. What we end up doing is making generalisations about the world. A large amount of this is guess work, we accept stuff cos it feels right. Doesnt mean it is right. Its like this statement about empirically testing and verifying everything. If you really test everything then you must include testing the concept too. The moment you do subject the concept to scrutiny it starts to unravel. I am guessing its something that felt right to you but that you didnt check with the same amount of energy that it proposes. Thats a guess btw, a deduction of best fit. I am somewhat prepared to be wrong. Ie i would be surprised but I think i am probably right.
Yes certain people specialize in the empirical verification of phenomena. Engineers, scientists, even philosophers mathematicians and tax inspectors. But i am unaware of anyone who has personally verified every single item issue and subject to those levels. Even if they had, there would always be more knowledge sets outside of what they knew that they would have to check against in order to eliminate uncertainty. How many data samples do we need to be sure? How many data samples do we need before we use can use a concept? What about best fit and fuzzy logic? What about uncertainty, risk and the unknown.
Sorry to be a twat, other than that i have started to get into your posts. Great work on sustained reaction btw. I take my hat off to you for the shere energy and drive you demonstrated.
When you say we should empirically test everything, what everything? gravity thermodynamics electromagnetics conductance, maths, time, mass, (and this is just from physics.) Then counter check and verify every single one of our empirical verification tools with every single other empirically tested item of data we have gathered.
Realistically its not possible. What we end up doing is making generalisations about the world. A large amount of this is guess work, we accept stuff cos it feels right. Doesnt mean it is right. Its like this statement about empirically testing and verifying everything. If you really test everything then you must include testing the concept too. The moment you do subject the concept to scrutiny it starts to unravel. I am guessing its something that felt right to you but that you didnt check with the same amount of energy that it proposes. Thats a guess btw, a deduction of best fit. I am somewhat prepared to be wrong. Ie i would be surprised but I think i am probably right.
Yes certain people specialize in the empirical verification of phenomena. Engineers, scientists, even philosophers mathematicians and tax inspectors. But i am unaware of anyone who has personally verified every single item issue and subject to those levels. Even if they had, there would always be more knowledge sets outside of what they knew that they would have to check against in order to eliminate uncertainty. How many data samples do we need to be sure? How many data samples do we need before we use can use a concept? What about best fit and fuzzy logic? What about uncertainty, risk and the unknown.
Sorry to be a twat, other than that i have started to get into your posts. Great work on sustained reaction btw. I take my hat off to you for the shere energy and drive you demonstrated.