Astrology is a Science unlike Karl Popper thought. However, it has be succeeded by more accurate sciences: cosmologyy, psychology.and neuro physiology
No a Science but a falsified science. There is no such thing as a pseudo science.
Patterns were studied, marked, analyzed. It was taken with all of the seriousness of any scientific inquiry.
It seemed to be verifiable. But, we have better sciences now. Its claims were falsified.
Popper was very useful for his time. But yes, in Popper’s quest to have a hard demarcation of category, he neglected other pragmatic methodologies such as trial and error with observation.
I agree. This also allow other “non science-y” fields to be considered Sciences, each with their pluses and minuses of course.
Fallibilism takes away the problem of “Science vs [x]”. Theology is a Science. How much of the Science is reasonable? Well, that all depends upon the best available evidence, etc.
They are infallible within the system itself. However, when that system interacts with the larger world, they can be fallible, as different forms of evidence and different metrics come into play.
===
When you want to make it do something instead of playing with itself.
==
Why? Epistemology, Science, Theology, etc.
How? Engineering, Mathematics, Logic
What? Ontology, Science
This is my mental breakdown. I welcome correction.
===
Science attempts to answer the “Why? via How?”. Pure “How” is engineering. Engineering doesn’t need a “Why”. Engineering doesn’t even need Math, although math is useful to engineering.
==
Science asks, “Why does this work the way it does?” It’s a How + Why. They come up with fancy names for phenomenon that answer the “Why?”
Engineering, which _can_ utilize math, but it can also utilize trial and error and heuristics (you can engineer without knowing geometry)… is a pure “how”.
==
err, actually human agreement does. “Did that work the way we thought it would?” “Yup, yup it did”. “Ok, then: It’s Objective Reality”.
==
Yes. There was agreement. People are involved in the process.
==
The initial criteria was set by people. The agreement was made by the people. The object does what the object does. The correspondence is ours to make or break. Necessitate just makes it sound fact-y.
===
Within the field of logic, sure. Step outside the field and those rules cease to apply.
==
But the problem is: it’s a closed world. You’re mapping everything to logic. Those things that do not map to logic, where do they go? What are they?
===
“Hey logic! Map the world… oh wait… humans haven’t come around yet. Dang it – nevermind – you don’t exist yet for people to map the Universe to.. Hang on in your platonic realm”
===
Well, I’ll say this, you’re a True Believer. God already knew I was gonna say it before I said it, except use Logic instead of God. Got it.
===
You’re operating within a Closed World that is a self-supporting structure with no room for anything else. Whatever does not fit into the closed world, you must reject as nonsense.
===
It’s logical. If Logic = Knowledge, then yes, I know.
==
What doesn’t fit into your closed world assumption, you must reject it as nonsense or irrelevant.
===
Logic doesn’t suck. It’s practical where it’s practical.
===
I’ll make an assumption about you:
I assume that you believe that logic is foundational. Supremely foundational. All things correspond to logic without exception. Those things that do not correspond to logic do not exist and those that say it does, are speaking nonsense, their logic is wrong, they are committing a sin.. I mean a fallacy, and can be summarily rejected because they do not fit into the world of things that correspond to logic, which is everything without exception.
===
Bingo. It comes down to not the logic, but the people who use it and what they use it for.
===
Nope. But I see someone in denial. People don’t like their religions challenged, and you know what? I respect that. I’ll cease and desist. Logic isn’t the worst thing to have as a foundation-of-all-things, so I’ll let it be.
===
I can replace the word God where you use the word Logic in a number of your statements, and they will work as religious discourse.
This is the evidence behind my assertions.
===
Circular reasoning is circular reasoning. Fallacy of presumption is making unwarranted claims or assumptions and going from there. It’s not a logical fallacy. Its more of a social faux pax codified as a fallacy… or sin.
===
You’re still in the closed world. This is why you can’t see it.
===
You’re using your ontology from your subculture and applying it to someone who is not within your subculture. You’re working from within to judge one from without.
===
“You have committed a fallacy” = judgement…. unless you believe all things logic are self-evident and you weren’t required in the transaction.
===
In which realm do these objective facts exist?
If you weren’t there, who would be applying them right now?
===
You’re on the other side of my screen across miles of wires and air. That’s an objective fact.
I am sitting here. This is an objective fact.
We are typing to each other and seeing each others words on our screens. That’s an objective fact.
Words coming from you to me. My words coming from me to you.
These are objective facts.
==
When we move to content: Does the content exist without the containers? Beliefs and thoughts move from your brain, through your body, through the Internet, to my screen, to my body and into my brain.
These form a firm basis of objective reality for me.
Can I ignore you are there and pretend that logic is working without you? I can’t.
You are a container containing and producing. I am a container containing and producing.
What motivates you to say, “You are committing a fallacy by saying [x]”?
It’s not logic. It’s belief.
The basis for that belief may have lots of evidence behind its functionality, but nevertheless, it remains a belief of yours.
HOW you choose to EXPRESS this belief is what causes me to categorize your belief in logic not as a practical thing, which is how I categorize logic as, but rather as a religion, for that is the appearance it has coming from you.
Why else would you be so motivated to defend it so? Use it so religiously? Refuse to step away from it for a moment?
===
It’s called Rhetoric. Our whole conversation, yours and mine and John’s is engaging in Rhetoric.
===
Sure it is. You’re trying to provide persuasive arguments. You’re using Logic as Rhetoric. There’s other ways to convince people as well.
===
True-as-defined-by the system called Logic. Sound Reasoning-as-defined-by the system called Logic.
You are using it in a conversation on the Internet with other humans to persuade that either: a) you are right b) they are wrong or c) – whatever c) would be.
===
Still falls in the family of Rhetoric. Rhetoric is not a bad thing at all: Its the art of being convincing and there are many tools to use.
In Byzantium, it was the highest and most difficult form of study in the University of Constantinople and few students made it that far, likely stopping at their studies of Aristotle or Plato somewhere along the line.
===
The fact that you felt the need to tell me that? Rhetoric.
===
How you view them is irrelevant. To say them, either to shut down the conversation, change its direction, whatever – Rhetoric. Even to say, “I don’t care” or “This topic is boring now”. Still Rhetoric.
===
Not everything is contained within the words you use.
===
Your intent is something I do not know and cannot know. Private minds. You can tell me your intent but I cannot prove it. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
All I have is what you show and what I take form there.
I can guess at your intent – it may or may not be relevant – but even then, I’m using it as rhetoric ,just as pointing out your annoyance is rhetoric.
=
{People ( Conversation ( Rhetoric ( Logic ) ) ) ) Logic is contained within Rhetoric
===
I’m referring to the objective reality of our conversation. There’s no mathematicians here right now.
===
Logic-as-Rhetorical-device again. Nicely done like emoticon
==
Your intent is irrelevant to rhetoric because I cannot know your intent, only your rhetoric.
===
If you weren’t attempting to convince me, then you would not be necessitated to say it at all. You did. Hence: Rhetoric.
====
Arguments where one person attempts to persuade another are annoying when there is disagreement.
===
My take on mathematics comes generally from concepts related to embodied mind, which can be less-than-persuasive to people deeply into “the universe is mathematics” and such:
==
I’m saying the practice of rhetoric which we are engaging in can be annoying, explaining perhaps why YOU feel annoyed. I’m enjoying myself. I was telling you, “I understand how Rhetoric can be annoying and I sympathize”
===
You’re subjective analyzing yourself and ascertaining that how you appeared was objectively in agreement with your subjective opinion. Nice.
===
You spoke of yourself. “Nothing I have said is rhetorical”.
I said that perhaps you didn’t intend it that way, but that’s sure what it looked like from the outside.
You said “it’s pretty objective”.
How can you objectively analyze how you appear to others?
===
You have not once entertained (at least outwardly) the possibilities that you were mistaken at any point in time.
That is not the use of logic for logic sake.
That is attempting to convince.
===
I go by what I see. I can’t see your practice, only your performance.
===
It would not convince you if I did. I’ve seen no evidence that you could see yourself as mistaken at any point in time.
===
It’s not a failure to produce them. It’s knowing the absurdity of convincing a man already convinced he is right that he is wrong.
In the game of Rhetoric, you win. In the game of Logic, I don’t know. I didn’t see a game of logic, only a game of Rhetoric. You persuaded me to give up. In the game of Rhetoric, this is a win. Congratulations. You win the Rhetoric award.
===
I wasn’t looking for your logical errors. I was looking at your ability to see yourself as mistaken. I found none. This does not make you good in debate but it does make you stubborn and closed.
===
My intent was not to bully but that is what I was doing. Rather than engaging you on your terms, I changed the terms and changed YOUR terms to fit mine. That was not fair and I was wrong in doing so.
===
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]