Unless it does come out the same way each time.</font>[/QUOTE]AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH - UUUUUUUUNNNNNNN........ *pop* [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

Sorry my head exploded. I'll come back later when I've picked my brains off the floor.</font>[/QUOTE]LOL. Well think about it. If seven thousand focus groups all did result in the same conclusion, that would be emprirically provable wouldn't it.

The simpler the question, the greater the likelihood such a situation would occur.

If "Do you believe you are alive" is answered yes by every focus group, it could be logically concluded through empirical assessment that humans believe they are alive.

Yea quite correct, sociology is all about identifying general patterns in the behaviour of particular individuals. Of course studying groups of people is alot differnet than say, studying gravity ;) Sociology as a dicipline has progressed quite a bit in the last hundred years, and does a good job of explaining how and why societies work the way they do.

[ 01-28-2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

I agree with this, is it not possible that there is no meaning to life. What if we are a by-product of some alien experiment; there is not too much meaning to that life. That may seem kind of silly to some, but there are people who believe this is true. In this scenario the only higher power would be a more advanced race of beings. Maybe god like, but certainly not omnipotent.

I realize this is just a hypothetical situation, it dose however bring up another point; even if it is far fetched. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry Yorick, you can't prove something on the basis of probability. You can't prove something by intuition, however many peoples intuition have been taken into account. Its quite strong evidence for the existance of something, but it cannot be proven this way. Just to give you an example - Fermat's Last Theorem. No one could find any numbers that would disprove it, not even in the whole scope of human comphrehension. That did not mean, however, that it had been proven. It meant we were fairly sure, but not certain. We couldn't be certain Fermant's Last Theorem was correct until some really heavy duty maths had been carried on on it, not because it was likely to be false or because we had seen it to be false - but because it was possible for it to be false.

The same applies to empirical evidence of peoples view of religion. A recurrence cannot under any circumstances be considered proof - as long as the possibility of a counter example exists (never mind actually finding it...) nothing can be proven. What you are talking about is something having a high empirical probability of recurrence, not something being empirically proven.

I agree with this, is it not possible that there is no meaning to life. What if we are a by-product of some alien experiment; there is not too much meaning to that life. That may seem kind of silly to some, but there are people who believe this is true. In this scenario the only higher power would be a more advanced race of beings. Maybe god like, but certainly not omnipotent.

I realize this is just a hypothetical situation, it dose however bring up another point; even if it is far fetched. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]The Meaning of Life is easy, that's 42. The hard part is knowing what the real question is!

Seriously I do not need a outside observer (ie creating power, all powerful god, alien masters, etc..) to give my life meaning. My life has meaning because I give it meaning. If someone feels they are leading a meaningless life then they should re-examine their goals and vaules [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry Yorick, you can't prove something on the basis of probability. You can't prove something by intuition, however many peoples intuition have been taken into account. Its quite strong evidence for the existance of something, but it cannot be proven this way. Just to give you an example - Fermat's Last Theorem. No one could find any numbers that would disprove it, not even in the whole scope of human comphrehension. That did not mean, however, that it had been proven. It meant we were fairly sure, but not certain. We couldn't be certain Fermant's Last Theorem was correct until some really heavy duty maths had been carried on on it, not because it was likely to be false or because we had seen it to be false - but because it was possible for it to be false.

The same applies to empirical evidence of peoples view of religion. A recurrence cannot under any circumstances be considered proof - as long as the possibility of a counter example exists (never mind actually finding it...) nothing can be proven. What you are talking about is something having a high empirical probability of recurrence, not something being empirically proven.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I didn't use the words "empirically proven" I said "logically concluded through empirical assessment". ;)

Edit: Actually I did earlier in the post.

THe point I was making is that IF hypothetically a question was found that 100% of every human ever asked was found to be the same answer, then a logical conclusion based on empirical assessment can be drawn.
I mean of course the only thing truly absolutely provable is that one is aware, but outside that there are relative assumptions that can be made. Such as Timbers own unproven conclusion that at least one wacky kook would asnwer "no". That is of course speculation at this point, however logical it may be.

Are we sick of this yet?? [img]tongue.gif[/img] I think we've gone so far up our ar$es we've come out our mouths again.

[ 01-28-2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]Originally posted by Rokenn:

Quote:

Originally posted by homer: [qb] My life has meaning because I give it meaning. If someone feels they are leading a meaningless life then they should re-examine their goals and vaules [img]smile.gif[/img]

Awesome. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*puts brain back in head through left nostril*
But, Yorick, you're simply wrong regarding this. Even your "are you alive question," 'cause I assure you at least 1 wacky kook will answer "NO." On the other hand sodium bicarbonate can't just *decide* not to fizzle.

HOLD THE PRESSES!! Yorick agreed with an atheist! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm saying IF! IF all humans answer yes.