When it comes to some other hypotheses, like the many worlds interpretation of QM phenomenon, we are not yet and may never be able to use it to make any predictions or run any experiments to see if it holds true with what is observable. — VagabondSpectre

Except that it is testable:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02048v3.pdf

I suppose that means that various interpretations of quantum mechanics are not scientific? — Michael

Most interpretations of quantum mechanics are in fact alternative theories, which in the end make different predictions. Some interpretations however can be dismissed as emblematic of bad philosophy, e.g. Copenhagen and "Shut Up and Calculate".

Uhh. By using science. Duh!

Which philosophical theory that hasn't been tested is better than any that also hasn't been tested? Which one would you say is more valid? — Harry Hindu

Uhh? Duh!

I have a tiny bit of experience in high security stuff. — swstephe

Well then you should understand the implications of Obama denying he knew about Hillary's illegal email server.

We now know, thanks to the 13th tranche of Podesta emails, published by Wikileaks, that Obama was lying, and that his Blackberry email address at the time was bobamaatameritechdotnet

And, apparently you can be removed from the Terror List by giving a donation to the Clinton Foundation. That is what Algeria did:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22638#efmAbzAg1Ag2AhWAiAAiKAkEAsy

Propaganda, I expect, but it shouldn't be presented as "fact". "Unfair" is a bit vague. What is fair and foul? What Nixon & company did was not merely "unfair", it was illegal. What was worse, is that he persisted in his illegality by attempting to cover up the crime. — Bitter Crank

Is it illegal to send covert US foreign policy details via an insecure server to someone's gmail account, who doesn't even have security clearance?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14068

Philosophy is a science. — Harry Hindu

Really? So how would you set about testing and falsifying a philosophical theory?

If you have a good idea as to how to make sure voters are authenticated so that they can't vote more than once, then I'm all ears. I don't see what the big fuss is about in making people identify themselves before voting. Why participate at all if there is no faith in the system? — Harry Hindu

This will have 4.5 million views in 2 days!



Part 2 is even worse!

I take it all back. Trump was clearly exploiting the birther issue in 2011, and it is obvious why.

My apologies, all this cryptic stuff has got me confused.

So the claim appears to be that Trump has tried to exploit the issue of Obama's true heritage, first raised by the Clinton campaign in 2007.

Except he didn't.

You mean this issue:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860

Was going to reply to your other post, but since you deleted it...

Are you referring to the contents of this email from 2008?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860

So what is the issue? An how did Trump exploit it?

Do you know what Sapientia is referring to?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. It's a discredited conspiracy theory, and this is a philosophy forum with standards that ought to be maintained. — Sapientia

What is the discredited conspiracy theory that Trump initiated?

Yes, indeed. This is what he is known for. Sore loser. After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day. — Sapientia

What dubious grounds are these?

Anyway, I'm finding the presidential election fascinating. On the one side, you have the apparatus of, if not the state, then certainly the establishment, while on the other side, you have a maverick individual.

I can't quite believe what Trump has achieved. Even the Republican party is against him, and the media is biased beyond belief.

At risk of the charge of being melodramatic, my view is that if Trump loses, democracy is over in US, at least until some sort of catastrophe happens. The pay-for-play culture is so entrenched and established, that vested interests will remain in control for a generation. The plan for the future that Soros has may be a good one, but I don't know what it is and there is no way of voting him out.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15201

And, despite the claims of CNN, it is not illegal to look at Wikileaks.

What's the difference between a philosophical belief and a scientific belief? — Martian From Venus

Nothing, they are both equally irrational.

Better to have arguments and ideas, and to subject them to criticism or testing.

Why wouldn't one defend the Clintons? A person needn't be perfect in order to defend them (and God knows the Clintons aren't perfect). Bill and Hillary have spent decades in public service, with Hillary fighting for the rights of women and the poor, trying to extend healthcare to the uninsured, and the Clinton Foundation has worked for years on solving problems facing the global poor and fighting disease. That work is admirable, and I would say they've done more good than harm. — Arkady

Rights of women, are you freakin kidding me?

Both Clinton and Trump are against Obama Care as it currently stands. Both want to reform it. Trump was to only Republican candidate for universal healthcare provision.

As for the Clinton foundation, have you been living under a rock?

http://www.latintimes.com/clinton-foundation-what-happened-39-billion-were-supposed-go-haiti-401841

It's all corroborated by the WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails. And it seems that Scott Foval was fired within hour of the video release.

Trump took a lot of flack for wanting to build a wall:

Of course the media are biased in lots of different ways. They are businesses selling products. Particularly in the U.S. I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call. — Baden

And the Clintons have amassed a $300million fortune by selling a product called "US government policy".

Here's the expose which the Media is ignoring. If it were Trump, he'd be arrested by now.

Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. — Agustino

This is a big problem for democracy. It has already been revealed that the DNC is corrupt; Bernie didn't stand a chance. But with Wall St. the Media, the FBI in Clinton's pocket (i.e. Soros's pocket), democracy has no chance.

If Trump had caused the riots in Chicago with paid agitators, it would be over for him.

Have you heard of WikiLeaks? It's there in black-and-white. The Podesta leaks show media collusion with the Clinton campaign to an extraordinary level. Some of it might even be criminal.

The latest revelations about Hillary training homeless, mentally ill, and assorted thugs, to start riots at Trump rallies (they claim Chicago as a major success), renders "Crooked Hillary" quite appropriate.

By the way, have you read about this in the media?

1916

Am I wrong? — VagabondSpectre

Yes

How do we predict how much force one massive object will exert upon another through gravity?

What is the fundamental mechanism of gravity? — VagabondSpectre

Are you asking for a science lesson?

I'm not talking about "explanations", I'm talking about empirical observations. I was pointing out that measuring and recording the suns behavior (#1) is how we can gain predictive power over it (through strong induction based on sound observations), not by "explaining" it. — VagabondSpectre

OK, so you have a record of past risings and settings of the sun. I have a record of milkman and postal deliveries to my house. I guess that makes us even?

I predict that there will be a milk delivery on Monday morning and a 66% chance of post. I am scientist!

As far as "science begins when explanations are proposed" goes, you have it completely backwards. Science does not "begin" with an explanation. It begins with a lack of an explanation, and then uses evidence and reason, like measurements of when and where the sun rises over the horizon, to try and figure out more and more functional (and presumably accurate) understandings. — VagabondSpectre

But in reality, most scientific theories are rejected because they are bad explanations. Geocentrism was rejected for that reason, despite, as you point out, its predictive reliability.

Science moves on, and we are in the era of unexperienced predictions. Entanglement was unexperienced for 50years, as was the Higgs. Gravitational waves were unexperienced for 100 years.

Science does not begin with explanations, it ends with them; that's it's final goal or product. Science decidedly begins with that most basic and fundamental activity of data collection. — VagabondSpectre

You mean like flogiston or the luminiferous aether is the end?

We predict the force of gravity between two objects by looking at their mass and the distance between them. This is physics 101. We don't know what gravity is unfortunately, so rocket scientists have do things my way... With precise approximation... — VagabondSpectre

We haven't done that for 100 years.

It's neither absolutely reliable that the next swan you see will be white, nor absolutely reliable that the sun will rise tomorrow. These things can be considered "reliable" (one much more so than the other) but we cannot call them certain. — VagabondSpectre

Just don't go to Australia Eh?

Gravity is something whose fundamental nature we do not yet fully understand, we just approximate it's force with mass and distance. And yet, the sheer consistency with which we measure it's force allows us to construct theories and to make reliable predictions about what effect it will have on particular bodies of mass. — VagabondSpectre

Unless we need to do accurate calculations for GPS, orbits of planets close to the sun, black holes, gravitational waves, the big bang, and indeed some long range missile targeting. Then we can't just approximate "its force with mass and distance", rather we need to deal with what we know gravity to be.

I don't need precision beyond "the sun rose every day within memory" in order to (through induction) identify a pattern with which to make the prediction "the sun will rise tomorrow". — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that is precisely how we are able to predict with absolute reliability that the next swan we encounter will be white.

What exactly do you mean by the square root of NOT? I thought you were talking about the square root of the word "not", which doesn't make sense to me. Whatever it is, is it to do with logic or physics? If the latter then, again, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about, which is logic. — Michael

Because the square root of NOT exists in Reality, it is a logical operator available to any physical entity capable of using it to reason, whether it makes "sense" to you or not.

Because, according to the idealist, these proofs don't work, such a square root isn't allowed, and idealism is the case.

How would the non-idealist address the same question? — Michael

Under physicalism, the square root of NOT is allowed, which is a good thing, since that particular logical operator exists in REALITY.

Logic is the same whether idealism or not-idealism is the case. — Michael

How do you know? How do you know that logic is independent of the rules that govern reality. For example, imagine a logical operator that might exist under certain rules of reality, but not others. What about a logic that is able to construct proofs that require infinite steps or, the square root of"not".

Why don't proofs with an infinite number of steps work under idealism, or the square root of "not" allowed as a logical operator?

Who said anything about the laws of physics? We were talking about logic; about what statements do or do not follow from others. — Michael

Which has nothing to do with Idealism?

Anyway, I asked what rules Idealist reality follows, and you seemed to reply,

The exact same rules that we currently use. — Michael

Which, as far as I'm aware are the laws of physics. i.e. Reality obeys the laws of physics. So, how is idealism different from (Physicalism + Label)?

The exact same rules that we currently use. — Michael

So, Idealist reality obeys the laws of physics. Thus Idealism and physicalism are identical except Idealism applies the label to everything in Reality "not objectively real"?

Under Idealism, how are these laws discovered?

I'm just interested in what rules Idealist reality might follow and how we can discover them.

How do we know that any kind of reality operates by logic? Does the question even make sense? It's language that operates by logic, and I see no reason to believe that the rules of semantic derivation depend on the ontological nature of things. — Michael

So, if Idealist reality does not operate by logic, then what rules does it follow?

No Socratic dialogue can undermine straightforward logic. — Michael

How do you know that the Idealist reality operates by "straight forward logic"?

While conclusion #2 represents falsehood, conclusion #1 is a completely rational strong cumulative argument (induction) whose strength is can be found in the reliability of the pattern that it observes and hence the predictions that it makes. "Ability to (successfully) predict" IS "reliability". The actual core foundations of their predictions were sound observations, not falsehoods. Their predictions did not work because of sheer luck, they worked because the phenomenon they observed, measured, and then predicted was reliable. Sure it was not "science" in that they were plunging the depths of the physical world in search of root causation, but as it happens their arguments, particularly about what the sun would appear to do in the sky, are in the same magnitude and order of reliability (reliability is science's version of certainty) as much of the best science that we have today. — VagabondSpectre

I think you might be missing something here. #2 is the conjectured *explanation* of #1. The reason that certain regularities exist is that the sun orbits the earth, and you cannot, via any logical process arrive at #2 via #1.

Now, when your table of regularities exists, you have an extremely useful tool - you have a "rule of thumb", which may prove invaluable for planting crops etc, but what you don't have is any science.

Science begins when an explanation of certain phenomena, be they regularities or irregularities, is proposed. Why does the sun orbit the earth? Why do we have seasons? Why can't Demeter and Zeus just get along?