can_contradictions_exist_in_reality They call me Truth any thoughts? is it impossible? 070721 ... . Perhaps the observed phenomenon only seems contradictory because we are relying too heavily on reductionist thinking... it's like slitting one's wrists with Occam's_Razor. 070722 ... Paradoxes: Possible?!? Probable. 070722 ... z no. by definition no. it would necessitate an error in observation, classification or a logical fallacy. no contradictions actually exist (if i understand the question correctly). 070723 ... . But it *is* an assumption you make, z, that the idea we call "contradiction" or "paradox" cannot exist in "reality". If a contradiction actually existed, would our observations, classifications, or logical deductions assuredly catch it? This question cannot be answered with an unequivocal "yes"... 070723 ... dosquatch Physical reality must obey its own rules. It cannot be in contradiction with itself. This is not to say that we understand all of the rules at play. Something may appear to be in contradiction, based on the rules as we understand them, but the failing is in our perception and our understanding. Our perceptions and understandings are an attempt to define reality. Reality, therefore, is the unwavering benchmark, and is free to do whatever it pleases. Any apparent contradictions must be resolved on our end. 070723 ... z detected or undetected is not relevant. paradox is not possible by definition. 070723 ... z by example, 2 answers to this question: yes, no. or no, yes. 070723 ... They call me Truth ive been reading a lot of stuff on logic and i found it quite interesting. i also read about paradoxes, like, "this statement is false." if the statement is really false then the statement is actually true. ive been thinking about these things too and i do agree that things appear to be contradictions as we perceive them but i am also wise enough to know that because contradictions don't follow logic, doesn't mean that they cant exist. logic in itself seems to me to be just as man made as perception. we have devised its limits based on our capacity to understand and reason with these things. it is also so with all other laws from all other fields of thought and observation that we have devised. by all means these things do appear to make sense. how can contradiction exist in reality? but it is also in my opinion, that to make absolute statements takes a certain amount of arrogance or certainty that could not be present given the limited knowledge in which we possess. i am undecided about this still however, though my perspective leans towards the possibility of contradiction. reality, to me, is both simple and complicated. 070723 ... z the contradictions you have cited are wordplay. that "this sentence is not true" seems to contradict it's self, creating a paradox, demonstrates that english is capable of creating false propositions. their is no physical expression of the concept, no actual contradiction, and therefore no paradox. the value of the words is abstract, pure symbol manipulation, with no actual or logical connection to anything. it is intriguing to think about, but ultimately, empty of substance. 070723 ... z dot: undemonstrable theories are not considered outside of hypotheses in the scientific method. 070723 ... ! z, what you said in response to tcmt is almost exactly my argument in favor of contradictions existing. you must remember, also, that not everyone accepts the scientific method as the sole, undisputed arbiter of truth! 070724 ... pete Yes, as these contradictions are the result of the limits of our rational capabilities. So then, maybe, no. We just see non-contradictions as contradictions because we're unable to understand them otherwise! 070724 ... zeke the scientific method is a tool for testing propositions, and while it is true that there are some ostensible untestable propositions, i do not understand any other way to vet the veracity of a truth. believing that something is true because it "feels right" or is unprovable either way, is just not how i am constructed. hypothesis remains hypothetical, unproven, until proven by repeatable and understandable (in terms of necessary connection) means. intuition feeds hypothesis, not truth. there are no self evident truths beyond first principles (which i believe should be relentlessly submitted to harsh examination). no free rides for fact. all else is speculation. 070724 ... They call me Truth z, there is nothing wrong with being constructed that way. I, however, am constructed different but i feel that absolute statements are solely for the self and not a measuring stick that you can measure the entire world with. IT is a wide spread belief that contradictions are impossible but i believe that anything I view as impossible is a matter of my own limitation not anyone else's. what we know is simply what we know. we do not know everything. as far as science is concerned i do not believe that it is absent of feeling and completely without perspective. to say that something is something, that a animal has a certain amount of skeletons in its body or that if a ball is thrown upward it falls at a certain amount of speed depending on how high its thrown is an observation and by all means is considered true. However, science does not stop there. scientists must draw CONCLUSIONS from observation, observations that are sometimes limited and conclusions that are sometimes incomplete after further scrutiny takes place. There are different perspectives in science. There may be popular ones that people may FEEL or believe based on CURRENT evidence shouldn't be false, couldn't be incorrect, but this does not mean that these THEORIES are infallible. Science is like an organism in the fact that its "TRUTHS" change as further information comes forth. this is not much different than what single entities such as humans do, just that science focuses on the physical world, which can be tested. I do believe that science is one of the most objective ways of looking at the world, more so than logic, because it is backed up by observable evidence. But science also feels that conclusions must be drawn and theories must be made. I do not disagree with drawing conclusions, but that science has the power to say that this is so and this is not is a "delusion" of the scientist. this is just as much a "delusion" as people who feel they intuitively know something and believe in possibilities outside of current scientific and logical theory. 070724 ... zeke science and logic provide structure to conjecture, and a specific value to the unproven. it provides context for the comparason of the value of ideas in a less subjective way than unexamined intuition. intuition is a valuable tool, as are speculation, extrapolation, and other forms of fantasy, but they are not equal to the proven. just because it can be concieved, does not make it so, or even possible. see: consensual_reality and flying_spaghetti_monster 070724 ... They call me Truth zeke, that does not change the fact that science is still rather subjective though it may be more objective than just raw intuitively belief, it is not a perfect organism completely removed from interpretation and the drawing of conclusion based on limited evidence. thus, it does not have the power to devise absolute truths. 070724 ... dosquatch Nor does it claim to. You'll notice that working scientific models are called "theories", not "facts" or "truths". They are, in short, the best set of rules and explanations we've been able to devise based on previous knowledge, repeatable experiments, observation and mathematical models. They are always subject to change as better knowledge, experiments, and math come to light. NONE of which changes this - all science is trying to do is codify the "real" world. Science chases the real in order to explain it. As this is the case, the "real" world is absolute and science is mutable. If there appears to be a contradiction, it is neccessarily in the science and math, and NOT in reality. Science, and the scientific method, are a method for exploring the world around us. It is not religion. It is not dogma. It is but a standardized procedure, subject to change should a better procedure be offered. I promise, gut feeling and supposition are not that better method. 070724 ... They call me Truth that was my point exactly. that science is not absolute. and neither is logic.It being the best mode of understanding reality is a judgment call that people have made based on what they BELIEVE is important in finding truth. There are people who would make a different judgment call based on different reasons all together. To measure the scientific method as the best mode of unearthing truth is a judgment, a perspective, just like anything other perspective and for some people causes them to be just as close minded as any religion or other field of thought. We have no access to ultimate reality and we will not until every factor is known and examined and tested. We will not possess access until all knowledge is present and taken into account. This as of late has not occurred. So to make any statement on ultimate reality is just speculation. if we were honest with ourselves we would admit that we are all speculating and making judgment calls. 070724 ... zeke yes. but the relative nature of things does not mean that all ideas are equally useful. searching for absolutes inures us to functional differences in value systems. if my system of understanding yields more practical utility, then i deem it (yes i dare) better than yours. i respect other's right to come to the wrong conclusions, even when we are both given the same evidence. this is what it is to be human. that respect, however, does not extend to doubting my own conclusions unless they are able to point out flaws in my process, observation or analysis or to demonstrate a new way of understanding that modifies or replaces my own. that has not happened here today. conceivable is not equivalent to possible. possible is not equivalent to probable. probable is not equivalent to provable. provable is not proven. 070724 ... They call me Truth judgment calls are still being made and i understand them for what they are. I do not view my perception to be better than yours but i understand that it is not perfect in the means of which to find absolute truth. if you wish to obtain absolute truth then it must be completely free of subjective perception. science is not. and thus with that conclusion drawn it holds little power to determine itself better, other than, well, the particular part of human condition called judgment and perception (and reason thrown into the mix) Truth be told, (lol) science does not efficiently serve as a vehicle to discover absoluteness (not as of yet and doubtfully anytime soon) however, it does serve your purpose (that things must require proof in order to be true). this is one perspective out of many and it is yours and it best fits YOU for your own personal purposes. i do not disagree with that and i have no problem with YOU viewing it as best, but the truth of that is relative to YOU and is not absolute. Though you may have different requirements of truth than i do, i do not view it to be greater, just different. IT fits you and you have remained in allegiance to it because it fits you. This is what makes us the same. 070724 ... dosquatch Solipsism, taken to its extreme, says that you cannot take at face value, or any value, ANYTHING outside of your own thoughts. I may be a lab rat being fed by an evil genie everything I sense. It is possible that even my very body is a figment of this artificial input. This is not truth, however. It is a mental exercise in doubt. The point is to try to doubt as much false as possible such that the truth may be more self evident. Interestingly, the scientific method does exactly this. It takes a model that seems to work, and it tries every way it can to BREAK THE MODEL. You cannot absolutely prove something true. You cannot prove a negative. But if you can find a condition under which your model does not give the correct answer, you then know your model is incomplete, and where, such that you might improve it in the next iteration. This is not absolute, it is not truth, but it IS the best understanding that we can achieve from WITHIN the system. For even we are a tomogotchi to an evil genie, we cannot know anything save what information is available to our senses. It behooves us to explore the nature of this existance. As long as the rules are predictable, even if provided by an evil genie, an orderly exploration is always, ALWAYS, going to yeild useful results on a more regular basis than wild assed guesses, even if such involves a certain amount of judgement call from time to time. 070724 ... They call me Truth there were many things within what you just said that i agree with. two thumbs way up!!! 070724 ... They call me Truth i had to read it again to see if I had anything to say. Let me say again that i think that is a very mature view of science and an accurate one as well. science is indeed amazing. My argument was not for solipsism, though i believe that intuition is an amazing and extraordinary asset. My argument was simply against absolute statements. We all choose to walk different paths and i enjoy being open to many of them. i also enjoy discovery and attaining knowledge. that is why i love science. but there are other parts of me that believe in the rawness of experience, and following of your own heart. To me, openness is the most useful thing in this life. 070724 ... tessa What is outside of reality? How can anything not be real? Does being real mean something exists? How can something be a something about which we can speak (ie, and hypothesise about the difference between it and 'reality') without the something existing? (my answer is yes) 070803 ... ? Could it be that the more we "try" and know things, the more we "trap" ourselves into seeing our "deductions" endlessly reiterated - ableit misleadingly? Remember that science sees the letters of the word, but itself cannot read. There is no red, delicious fruit - there is only A, P, P, L and E. Think atoms. Think galaxies. Could there be more to these entities than can be seen with traditional science? Is there a risk to our perception in becoming too dependent on the scientific lens? 070803 ... They call me Truth that may happen if we let it. 070803 ... i think it already has. 070803 ... They call me Truth yes it may have happened already. 070804 ... They call me Truth see: the_terrible_truth_about_truth. 070804 ... kuffsleeve contradictions exist within confusion, confusion is part of a bigger whole. where is the silence? where is the clarity? 070807 ... zeke contradictions manifest because of the misuse of language. propositions can be constructed that are irrational, but that does not mean that they are actual. they are human constructs without any demonstrable connections to reality. they are logical fallacies. when we make assertions which are purely rhetorical, theoretical or hypothetical, we are engaging in useful fiction, not a description of the natural world (read as testable reality). these assertions are often used to frame questions which are testable. if their logical construction is self contradictory, then no rational question can result. 070807 ... Christ without the cross well isn't rationality a construct as well?? doesn't what we think is rational change?? 070807 ... zeke yes and yes. 070808 ... . maybe 070808 ... z semantic fallacy 071025 ... z no evidence suggests that they do. 071026 ... They call me Trutn Well it depends because i see contradictions everywhere but if you are talking about scientific proof (which I'm sure u r referring to)i agree. There is no evidence that they do... 071027 ... u24 where does it say that the universe ('reality') must be sensible? sensible meaning "something which can be made sense of", or "something which can be understood in logically coherent terms" 071027 ... u24 "Physical reality must obey its own rules" -dosquatch who says reality must have rules? "logic in itself seems to me to be just as man made as perception." -tcmt somewhat agreed. "conceivable is not equivalent to possible." -z inconceivable is not equivalent to impossible "You cannot prove a negative." -dosquatch I would like to see the proof of that (no, puns aside, I really would; sounds rather like the work of Frege and all those people (Quine, and I forget who else)) "contradictions manifest because of the misuse of language." - z yes, but what's the relation between language and reality? is there a necessary and fundamental link between language and reality? 071027 ... z u: no necessary connection exists between language and reality (it being a human construct). that is part of my point. 071101 ... z u: "inconcievable is not equivalent to impossible" is a non-sequitur to my original statement "conceivable is not equivalent to possible". i presume that you are calling attention to the idea that my statement does not "invert" logically to yours, but i do not know why; i made no such claim. can you expand on your thought (it intrigues me). 071102 ... z "Physical reality must obey its own rules" -dosquatch who says reality must have rules? i think "rules" may be the wrong word, but there is a principle being described in the above. science assumes that reality is internally consistent, and when it appears to contradict itself, science adjusts itself to accommodate the inconsistency be reexamining it's assumptions, observations, protocols and conclusions. then what initially looked like a contradiction, when viewed in a more nuanced way, can be understood. dosquatch (if i understood him) was merely pointing out that there is no testable reason to posit that contradictions are anything but the artifacts of our limited perspective, and further, that most can be resolved with the scientific method. 071102 ... They call me Truth There is an assumption here, and it is just as bold to make this assumption as it is to assume that contradictions doesn't exist or that they do for that matter. All these assumption are made from limited perspective, yet we continue to assume he absolute of things without any proof of one. Science, like language, like logic, all have their importance, to help us understand our world and each other. I do not think they have the authority to make absolute statements on reality. 071105 ... zeke the arbiter of the functional truth respectfully. i have repeatedly stated that since there is no evidence for the existence of contradictions that assuming that they exist is essentially wishing. regarding assumptions, try living without them for a day. assumptions allow us to function. this argument, however has nothing to do with a this argument. you, in posing the question, asked a question which, rhetorically, begged an absolute answer. my answers are based on a rational approach: if there is no evidence to for something, then there is no reason to assume it exists or occurs. conceivable is not possible, possible is not probable, probable is not provable and provable is not proven. does that mean that it is impossible? no. but i have no reason to believe that it is, and therefore don't. it's very simple. i don't believe in fairies. 071105 ... zeke needs an editor respectfully. i have repeatedly stated that since there is no evidence for the existence of contradictions that assuming that they exist is essentially wishing. regarding assumptions, try living without them for a day. assumptions allow us to function. that, however, has nothing to do with this discussion. you, in posing the question, asked a question which, rhetorically, begged an absolute answer. my answers are based on a rational approach: if there is no evidence to for something, then there is no reason to assume it exists or occurs. conceivable is not possible, possible is not probable, probable is not provable and provable is not proven. does that mean that it is impossible? no. but i have no reason to believe that it is, and therefore don't. it's very simple. i don't believe in fairies. 071105 ... u24 @z re:"i think "rules" may be the wrong word" comment. I agree that perceived contradictions are often the result of limited perspective (cf Spinoza). One might say that the error lies in the perception not the contradiction. But my point was that there is no reason that the reasoned explanation must be the correct one. There are no 10-foot burning letters saying that the universe must make sense. 071105 ... z u: i got that. where then do we place our trust, our foundations, on the potential or on the observable? necessary connection is an important principle. without it, we have nothing concrete. philosophy can be beautiful, some of it can be useful too. 071105 ... z I love to eat motorcycles. 071105 ... z see: my_current_philosophy and it_all_exists 071105 ... zeke z (z) () please do not use my alias (z). thank, in advance. 071105 ... zeke z (z) () please do not use my alias (z). thanks, in advance. 071105 ... Friend of Speeegles plaplaplapla! ahahaha!!!! 071105 ... Arianrhod are u always here? 071105 ... Arianrhod You must be here all the time Z. 071105 ... Arianrhod mr. STUCK UP 071105 ... z please stop. 071105 ... minnesota_chris you can't own all usages of a letter any more than jane can be the only jane I'm not even the only minnesota_chris 071105 ... z in blather you can't own anything. it is clear that the intent of the posts was to taunt. i can only request respect, not demand it. it is what i would offer another. 071105 ... wnar see: rot13 071105 ... They call me Truth Actually my question was not looking for an absolute statement if you have been listening to my redundancy on this page. That was your assumption (indeed we need them to survive, but many times we make them in excess) Z, I've understood your approach from the beginning of this page. The reason i restate myself is not only because of ego, but to interject the thought that all of this is just a discussion, and what we are really discussing here is not truth, but rather belief (though i may use the two interchangeably) You are obviously intelligent and i understand your logical reasoning. But it is not necessary to say a thing exists or not whether there is no evidence for it in reality. There have not been evidence (and i must stress that this is scientific evidence because I'm sure that people that have seen a fairy would believe that to be evidence enough)that fairies exist but in the same sense, there has been no evidence that they do not. There have been many things in this world that have recently been discovered. Does whether we know of them or have proof of their existence have any affect on them existing? I personally do not think so. But whether we choose to believe or not believe or be neutral on a thing is a matter of preference. You did answer my question in the last response to me however. You said no, it is not impossible. You continued further by restating your opinion. This does not change the answer to the general question, only restates an answer to a more personal question: whether you believe in contradictions. That is an entirely different question. That question is "Do YOU believe that contradictions can exist in reality?" Nonetheless, i understand why you would make this question personal, i did want to hear your personal thoughts on the matter. But naturally, given my nature, trying to make something universal based on personal belief ignites a certain response in me. And do not know if you believe that because you are a logical thinker makes your opinion BETTER than anyone else's. This really does not concern me. But you have proven your point and i have understood. 071105 ... They call me Truth And in regards to what you said to U 24: We can place our faith wherever we want? It makes two different kind of people but none of them are going to die because of where they choose to place their faith. We decide what is important and we live our lives accordingly. I, personally, choose to believe in potential, not because i want to believe in fairy tales but because i do not think it necessary to make life concrete, full of concrete things. I do not choose to limit my potential based on what we believe we know or what we think is possible. I think an important asset in life is an open mind and i do not need to stand on any sturdy foundation, i prefer to wobble a little bit. I want to increase my understanding, not centralize completely on one way of looking at things. I do not feel a great pain from this and it does cause me to lose the ability to reason. 071105 ... respectfully z i respect your choice. understand, however, that my system of valuation does not allow "possibility" equal standing to established facts. it never will. incidentally, why did you start this blathe? i have had a tremendous amount of enjoyment repeating myself here. but understanding your motive for asking the original question would be interesting. 071105 ... They call me Truth Z, respectfully, i have thoroughly enjoyed repeating myself as well, repetition is at the core of most arguments. Z, since you are intrigued i must humor you with A reason. I asked two questions at the beginning of this blathe. My first was if any one had any thoughts, my second was can it exist. It was for the purposes of intriguing discussion, on more of a philosophical basis than a scientific one (although science was welcomed as well). It was for the purpose of discussion. It was more in regard to abstractions, good and evil, love and hate, human nature, truth and falsity that all seem to have slippery gray areas and seem to hold within them some contradiction. That is A reason. I do not intend on changing your perspective. I am very aware that some people think in the manner that you do. i not only respect, i understand it, i simply don't prefer it. This is not an attack on how you see things, it is just a separation of what you think from the reality of a subject such as this. Your reliance on established facts, though it may be amusing, says nothing on ultimate reality, only your reality and the reality of people who choose to believe things the way you do... Regardless of what either of us says, the ultimate reality of this will not change. We are just discussing it. 071105 ... third party i have definitely learned things from you both during this discussion 071105 ... z are you the third party of the_athiests_challange? 071106 ... that should be the_atheists_challenge 071106 ... third party z: hell no. o god, hell no. 071106 ... z no 071217 ... third party right. no. i'm not the same third party. (?) 071217 ... :p wots a contradiction ying yang ping pong? magnetics are magnetics you can't push and pull the truth its like ummmm you know thinking that Peter Pan and Star Wars isn't real, if it's not real then prove it to me cos the idea definitely came from somewhere. 071217 ... littlegirl wow this was so interesting to read.i actually read the whole thing. also, because of the fact that i am just an observer i noticed that you two seemed to be saying the same thing. its interesting to observe how people can convey two opinions that are so similar, but think that they are so different. 071218 ... daf Yes, they can't. 071218 ... fuffle it's just babble chatty twitter gobbledygook, chat like a baby and make your own lingo up, you know like when you are a baby you say all words mixed up and back to front cos your trying to learn it. Pirates are normally rude in every sentence but people don't take it personally because they know that they are just pirates having fun, pirates don't intend to kill or rob people they just want to have a lot of fun type thing. a three year old told me to FUCK OFF a couple of months back but i didn't take it personally i just kind of felt rejected for half a second then i found it hilarious. if people love themselves then they won't get hurt by what anyone says, it's true, i promise you, be careful with sticks and stones though they really can hurt. water pistols, powder paint and water bombs are so much fun because they make you laugh and laughter can be better than mediocre sex ! 071218 ... z for the record, i was not saying the same thing as tcmt. not even really close. 080129 ... jane see: paradox 080129 ... They call me Truth Hey Z, i was rereading this blathe because it was one blathe that i always remembered and I have a question... What happens when established facts turn out to be wrong or inaccurate, as so many of them do, do you simply change your perspective? And second, do you ever question established facts? 080414 ... z i quote myself from above: science assumes that reality is internally consistent, and when it appears to contradict itself, science adjusts itself to accommodate the inconsistency by reexamining it's assumptions, observations, protocols and conclusions. then what initially looked like a contradiction, when viewed in a more nuanced way, can be understood. and there are no self evident truths beyond first principles (which i believe should be relentlessly submitted to harsh examination). but then i don't suffer from a truth fetish. 080414 ... They call me Truth what is a truth fetish? "there are no self evident truths beyond first principles" What does this mean? And is your response to my question a yes, you do question established facts? 080414 ... epitome of incomprehensibility May I interject? About science. I am not sure if it is something to be "believed" in (if you take it on its terms, than it would be insulting to call it a belief) as a mode of thought that excludes all others. I'm not sure if it's even a mode of thought... rather a discipline or a practice. Maybe I've just got the model of school subjects stuck in my head (you know, MATH, SCIENCE, SOCIAL STUDIES, ENGLISH, FRENCH (or Spanish) etc.), but it seems that science is a tool for figuring out certain types of things. The scientific method can certainly be applied in other disciplines, and it is, but things like art, writing, humour, etc. follow their own rules and are interpreted in ways specific to their discipline. That being said, this has nothing in particular to do with contradictions existing in reality or not. If I were trying to be witty I would say they both do and they don't. Hm. Maybe that is a point. Including both options would invalidate the argument, so logically I would go with contradictions NOT existing. Or maybe this is a case of language collapsing in on itself (what someone called "semantic fallacy"?) The double mirror effect. Anyway, carry on. 080414 ... z "what is a truth fetish?" sorry, that was at once a joking reference to myself, a comment and a play on your alias. you may have noticed that i frequently assert that "truth is a human construct". i use this catch-phrase to remind myself (and others) that we create and uphold the truths that we live and think by. this is not to say that these truths are less true to each of us, but rather, that they are dependant on our system of valuation (and it on them). by referencing truth in this context, i am mocking myself, commenting on the conditional features of the above discussion and gently tweaking your nose (you are after all called "they call me the truth"). to be that is a heavy responsibility. it also contains a value statement: that there is a singular truth. by calling truth the subject of a fetish, i am reminding us all try to always keep perspective and question all truth, relentlessly. "there are no self evident truths beyond first principles" first principles are the foundation of any system of thought. they are the primary assumptions that uphold any argument or belief. without them, there is no shared value which can be used for debate, and indeed, argument (in the formal sense) can not exist. self evident truths are first principles, though the very notion of self evident is, for me suspect. like it or not, we all rely on some basic facts. admitting this is the first step to organized philosophy. "And is your response to my question a yes, you do question established facts?" i believe that we must continually subject all assumptions to examination, questioning all of our "truest" ideas, so that we can approach all ideas with any degree of objectivity. contrary to what it may imply, this belief does not imply parity of value to all ideas, it tends to suggest that some ideas are more "true" than others. 080415 ... Until Then... "Yes!" "NO!!!" Can contradictions exist in reality? Yes. I contradict myself all the time. Therefore, here in reality, contradictions exist, have existed, and will continue to exist until my death. 080415 ... They call me Truth Z, if that is what you are saying i would have to say that we share very similar views on truth. Our difference is a matter of preference. And we may be indeed saying the same things to one another (but i already know you disagree). We arrive at different conclusions however. I do believe that truth is a construct as well as many things. I have believed that for quite some time. These constructs are not independent of perception. And my name (if that was what you were implying) does not mean there is only 1 truth. I do not believe this, and in some odd way my name points to that. They call me Truth, not THE TRUTH. If I truly believed that there was one truth, and i was it, I would say that I am the truth. Calling a thing true and it actually being true is two different things. Some things may be truer than others. That is agreed as well. Truth is a construct and that leads me to a more open perspective on everything. 080415 ... z that is why the scientific method is so important. 080415 ... z preference is not truth. 080415 ... z some truths are truer than others. 080415 ... They call me Truth If truth is a construct then it does not matter what preference is or is not. Preference has a great deal to do with truth, and so does choice. Choice has a great deal with perception. Some truths are truer than others. The scientific method is important. Those are both judgment calls that say something about you. I do not believe that says anything in absolute terms. But that does'nt mean i don't agree with you. 080416 ... They call me Truth wow, there are a lot of errors in my blathe... oops!!! 080416 ... z preference does not excuse faulty reasoning. 080416 ... z the scientific method was created to remove the effects of preference, judgement and other contributors to faulty reasoning. 080416 ... They call me Truth The scientific method does not "remove" anything. That is something that you have decided upon. The scientific method asks that you make a judgment (based on observation and research). That is the hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis and if it withstands all the experiments then a conclusion is drawn. If the conclusion matches the beginning judgment or hypothesis then it becomes a working theory. Future observations may alter or destroy this theory altogether as it has been done in the past. The scientific method in its broadest form is the method that is used by a thinking person. People make judgments all the time, and based on what they observe in their environment and what they experiment with, these judgments change and evolve. Observation really depends on what you are looking at. If you are looking at a rock, it is clear that when you drop it, it will fall to the ground and obey the laws of gravity. But if you go to the subatomic level the laws are very different and are sometimes unpredictable. Data is not definite in the real world because many factors play into the course of things. In controlled environments that is different, such as the environment of a scientific experiment. You may be able to control something in a closed setting but Control is something that becomes hazy in the real world because there are many factors that impact our world and these factors work together. This is where preference comes into play. Prefernce is choice. We choose what we will observe and what conclusions we will draw from that based on what makes sense to us. This is not faulty reason. This is human. What I would say is that it is important that people realize that they are doing this. It is very humbling when you realize that the "self" is never absent in interpretation. 080416 ... z no. 080417 ... Betsy the Bystander Thats it my dear Zeeky? "No?" 080417 ... Betsy is Back Or should that be 'Zekey'? 080417 ... z that we are incapable of absolute objectivity does not pull the rug out from under the scientific method. it is the most consistently demonstrable way to predict reality. it consistently produces the most useful results, both in terms of prediction and productive extrapolation. and it can be used to produce derivative hypotheses that themselves accurately predict measurable outcomes. these predictions are almost always correct. the fact that observation or the protocols or the thinking involved can be poor only indicts the examiner, not the scientific method. science can be done wrong, but that does not make it less true. by your above standard, only a being with omniscient awareness can achieve any degree of certainty. does science evolve? of course. is science at parity with unproven systems of explaining the world. no. the scientific method is not equal to the possible or the unproven, wishing, gut feelings, hope, love the spirit, mysticism or the tooth fairy. the sun is not a chariot pulled across the sky, the earth was not created in 7 days and the stars cannot predict my personality or the future. contradictions cannot exist in reality. 080417 ... z the scientific method removes distractions from the observable by disqualifying them. 080417 ... z the scientific method was created to compensate for subjectivity. 080417 ... z the only things that are true, remain true, regardless of our ability to know them. reality is as it is and can be no other way. after all, reality, is what is, not what might be. only what it is. it is what it is. 080417 ... They call me Truth i never said that the scientific method is equal to anything. No flying zebras. No spaghetti monsters, no intergalactic two tailed unicorns. I am not making a comparison with anything. I said merely what I said. Science not only evolves, it revises itself. It removes past errors and makes improvements to theories. The scientific method is a construction, just like truth, and it is used for specific purposes. It was created by people, for people to use for certain reasons. Yet it has the capability to become dogmatic. Its usefulness is never absent of personal interpretation. I never said that the scientific method wasn't useful. I just stated that it is standardized version of what most thinking people do on their own. There is no reason for you to defend the scientific method. I agree with you. I agree that it is useful, very useful in fact, and it is a very practical means of gaining knowledge. Constructions, however, are made to be used, not for people to become slaves to it. In my opinion, science, for some people, has become just as rigid and overbearing as religion, placing Proof as the all powerful God. Though I agree proof is important when dealing with practical applications and understanding things in the physical world more deeply, it is not a means to live my life, and that is simply just my preference. I don't overcompensate my personal wisdom. I do not believe science will accurately answer everything in this world. New answers often leads to more questions. And none of us knows what the ultimate reality really is. It is still just speculation. It could just as easily be something entirely different than our current vision of it. 080418 ... They call me Truth man is paradox 081009 ... z "the ultimate reality" has no utility. it is a construct with no legs that stands too high for us to climb to. it is pie in the sky. i do not accept that there is a reality that is different than the one we know. for me, this IS the one and only reality. ultimate, is just another word for god, and i have no evidence of a god. 081009 ... z also, though i am a man, i am no paradox. i am known to myself. i can, but will not choose to speak for anyone else. 081009 ... also schroedinger's_cat 081009 ... They call me Truth I was thinking amongst myself and i came to the conclusion that "man is paradox" simply because: 1. I view many of my thoughts and views as paradoxical but i do not try to find peace among them because I find them all very useful to how i see the world. and 2. Because i like the way it sounded in my head. There may truly be no reality outside of this one. You may be absolutely right in that assumption. 081010 what's it to you? who go blather from