Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    What is fully accepted as genuine religious statement may be seen as poor superstition by those who do not share the same faith. Since there are no generally agreed proper or accepted religious standards among people of different cultural backgrounds, the very notion of what is a superstitious behavior is relative to local culture.
    there is no difference between religion and superstition

    Leave a comment:


  • Mathrosa
    replied
    Maybe you are arguing with philosophical zombies or your are a solipsist

    Leave a comment:


  • kalrish
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    You probably missed the part where science requires proof of any assumption before it is accepted as true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Also, please fix your keyboard's return key.
    You certainly missed learning to think (and some basic English philosophical-scientific terminology and or etymology). To assume something is to believe it (a synonym in this context is «suppose»), usually as a preparation step for further theoretical claims. Some mundane definitions you'll find for «assume», given that you're not only capable of using pedantic language, but also of performing web searches: “suppose to be the case, without proof” (Google's define feature), “to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true” (Merriam-Webster). As I said above, assumptions cannot be proven, for proving anything, including them themselves, would assume them, and this would be tautological, as is called nowadays. Science supposes, among other things, that there's an objective reality and that events cause other events, and it does not, nor can it, prove that.

    By the way, truths, in the sense of absolute truths, would obviously be atemporal (which is practically equivalent to, albeit not the same as, eternal), while scientific theories change. That, along with the fact that science is based on assumptions, should be enough for anyone to notice that science doesn't yield absolute truths, which is what I first said.

    Now, the course of philosophy in the last hundred years (approximately) has lead to the general consensus that it is not possible to set out to know without assumptions or to get rid of them, and that many assumptions are not chosen or that one is not even aware of them (our biology and culture being the most studied). Thus, if «truth» meant «absolute truth», there wouldn't be any truths. Philosophers, especially English and American ones of the analytic branch, dislike that, and have fiercely tried to redefine «truth» to mean something that's related to the traditional concept of truth and possible for us to achieve. This I dislike and in turn combat in troll nests such as these forums against the worst kind of ignorant: the pedantic. Such is life.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kalrish View Post
    To assume that events cause other events (causality), which is one of the assumptions of physics, is not any less an assumption than to assume that everything happens at God's will (which appears, though not as an assumption, in e.g. Malebranche).
    I'm not sure where you want to go with this bullshit.

    All scientific assumptions are tested and validated by each and everything you build upon them and actually works in real life. Causality is tested and validated each time something works exactly as designed or a theory based on it shows proof it's describing the reality.

    Non-scientific bullshit isn't even tested with a method that excludes bias, go figure how well it is validated.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kalrish View Post
    Sciences are based on assumptions anyway,
    You probably missed the part where science requires proof of any assumption before it is accepted as true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Also, please fix your keyboard's return key.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by kalrish View Post
    Not only. Many liberals also distinguished science as being genuinely founded on rational grounds, which ultimately is not. Moreover, usefulness depends on the objective that's seeked, so a distinction based on usefulness assumes an objective, and we all know people seek many different (and often conflicting) objectives regarding their societies or even all societies, such that many different such distinctions could be made.
    In my understanding, usefulness does not necessitate an objective. A measurement of usefulness can happen after many years, even when the authors are long after their death.

    Leave a comment:


  • kalrish
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
    One can choose any interpretation of reality that leads to results.
    Reality, i.e., that there's something beyond our conscience, is already an assumption (and this is against Descartes).


    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/. The question is broader than mere falsificationism.


    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
    The distinction is based on the number of useful results delivered to mankind.
    Not only. Many liberals also distinguished science as being genuinely founded on rational grounds, which ultimately is not. Moreover, usefulness depends on the objective that's seeked, so a distinction based on usefulness assumes an objective, and we all know people seek many different (and often conflicting) objectives regarding their societies or even all societies, such that many different such distinctions could be made.

    Leave a comment:


  • kalrish
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post

    ROFL. If there is one thing you post conveys, it is your scientific illiteracy.

    The critical difference between science and superstition is that science is testing its assumptions. This is actually what makes science so useful.
    Assumptions cannot be tested. If you actually believe science tests its assumptions, the illiteracy here is yours. And its scope is quite broader than just sciences.

    Leave a comment:


  • kalrish
    replied
    Originally posted by Sethox View Post

    Dude, Science is just another tool in life. However it's used it's on the people's action, not the tool itself.

    It's like saying it's the hammers fault for being a weapon because it's deadly if you hit someone with it real hard.
    It seems you didn't understand anything. What this was all about was that atomsymbol made a distinction between science and superstition as though they were radically different, that is, of different nature, and I argued that's not the case, for both, and any form of knowledge for that matter, are based on assumptions. To assume that events cause other events (causality), which is one of the assumptions of physics, is not any less an assumption than to assume that everything happens at God's will (which appears, though not as an assumption, in e.g. Malebranche).

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by kalrish View Post

    Sciences are based on assumptions anyway, so they don't yield truths in the sense of absolute truths. Physics, for example, has traditionally assumed –among other things– that there is a single reality (i.e. objectivity) composed of individual substances (used to be the atoms; then came subatomic particles, the quarks and, since relativity, things have got more complicated) and that these substances interact (i.e. causality). Thus, the ‘truths’ of sciences are as valid as the result of assuming, for example, that there's an almighty deity and that such great will will reward or punish one according to how one behaves (this is roughly destiny, and it appears in many ancient cultures) or upon doing some things (what's now called ‘superstition’, like fearing walking under a ladder will bring one bad luck). What happens is that this irritating liberal tradition which everyone in the Anglosphere buys into made a distinction between science and superstition on false grounds and glorified the thus wrongly-distinguised sciences. The only difference between science's basic assumptions and any other assumptions one could make is really that they seem more reasonable to the majority nowadays. The difference doesn't lay in their nature, but in how they are perceived. And since when is a sensation of the majority a proper ground or method for us to reach knowledge? Certainly not until recently, with the rather irritating English philosophy. They even have tricks to turn their axioms («axiom» is another word for «assumption» they use to hide the fact they make assumptions and the astonishing quantity of them) and openly-recognized assumptions (like the principle of non-contradiction) into objective or cuasi-objective principles, like the old psychologism or the "you are discussing, therefore you abide by these assumptions" bullshit, related to the inter-subjectivity concept, which is yet another theoretical trick to save the annoying legacy of modern phylosophy. Long story short: sciences are overrated.
    ROFL. If there is one thing you post conveys, it is your scientific illiteracy.

    The critical difference between science and superstition is that science is testing its assumptions. This is actually what makes science so useful.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X