View Single Post
Old 10-08-2008, 01:22 PM   #14
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Stating that everyone loves fallacies is fallacious. I can't imagine Achilles, for example, ever saying such a thing (and to be clear, that's a good thing--I don't want anyone reading anything negative into that, please.)

Which fallacies should fly, by the way? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? What limits shall we apply? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? Does this really sound reasonable to you?
Well the 'Everybody loves fallacies comment was sarcastic and technical meaningless, only being meant to lighten the mood...

As for fallacies...

The inductive fallacy, is one the should be allowed to fly, but within strict regulation. IE, criticism of opposing and supporting evidences for what is being inductively claimed. For example, evolution uses the inductive fallacy, but that's why we call it a theory. Thinking gravity works is also an inductive fallacy, but so far, as long as our knowledge of gravity works with what gravity does, then its safe to assume that we will stay on the ground, until we start floating away and every atom of every compound breaks apart...
We need evidence because in order to make up for the inductive fallacy, we need falsifiable claims. The theories must suit the facts. If evolution was disproven tomorrow, I'd be reluctant to accept it being falsified because it is such a vital concept to how many things seem to work. But, I would gladly do research on my own to see if it really was disproven, and if it was, I would most certainly accept that as a reality.

The Big Bang, for example, is a theory that is a little difficult to put into cold hard fact at the moment. We have been able to analyze movements of galactic objects and have done scans on various light wavelengths, and have managed to be able to see that it appears that the galaxy rapidly expanded from some central point. For the moment, most of our theories about the universe are based in mathematics.

To get more answers, we've been building things like the LHC, we've even got our 1337 Hubble telescope checking out all those stars and whatnot...

The inductive fallacy should be strictly regulated, as the scientific community has done in their studies and experiments.

I'm not so sceptical as to think that it's not safe to assume that my computer won't explode in my face. Scepticism at that level would be paranoid and not let anything get done. Although it is smart to be cautious.

Basically, overall, with fallacies, I think it's important to keep a careful balance.

As for the metaphysical theories of the big bang. Yes, they are metaphysical, but as least we use something falsifiable, such as mathematics, in theorizing about it. Quantum physics is far different than the laws of physics. There are some odd things about the universe we do not know for sure about, such as dark matter and whatnot. That's why we're building things like the LHC to attempt to figure it out.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,