cd.thomson
|
| posted on 10/9/09 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
i cant tell, are you guys just trying to wind up whipster?
next youll be arguing that mathematics isnt universal 
The thing about philosophy is its basically nonverifiable science, i.e. a waste of "time", whether it exists or not 
Q. does a tree that falls in the woods still make a sound if there is noone there to hear it?
A. all evidence suggests that a tree falling in standard earthly conditions will produce a pulse of compressions and rarefactions in the gas that
makes up our atmosphere. The longitudinal wave is described as "sound" in our native tongue. No matter what word you use to describe it or
even if this occurs where there are NO words (i.e. no humans exist) it still happens and the action/reaction would still be described as a sound if by
any chance there was someone nearby!
How we describe something does not prevent or allow it to exist, thats the whole point of scientific base principles.
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 11/9/09 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
How we describe something does not prevent or allow it to exist, thats the whole point of scientific base principles.
yeah, but the scientific base principles are described by us.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 11/9/09 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
the description doesnt change whats described.
the earth would still orbit the sun whether it was habited by us who can talk about the nuances of "gravity" or it was an uninhabited lump
of condensed space dust. The earth would still reflect the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum we detect as "blue light" from its
oceans wether there are eyes to see it or not.
Although scientific theories change historically, the base truths that science seeks to describe do not. Thats why all this rubbish about science
being a social construct is nads. A scientific theory oscillates round a core truth as more evidence is collected, complete paradigm shifts are
extremely rare!
Craig
|
|
|
