The truth is out there. Or is it?

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel That is not a problem. Trogdor simply stated that he does not believe things solely because someone else says they are. He did not say that he disbelieves everything he can't touch. At least that is how I interpreted his post. Trogdor, please correct me if I am wrong.

I do not believe he does so exclusively since I expect everyone to be under much heavier influence of existing theories than we all are aware of at first. The conclusion that our arm is not bent using your proposed method discards the alternative thesis that our arm somehow does not feel it's bending when in water and somehow looks different when viewed from different angles. There are scientific theories lurking in our thoughts everywhere.

What do you mean with "theories about unobservables"? Unobservables like what? I was under the impression that scientific method basically meant acquiring new information by testing.

Unobservables like electrons, quarks, fields, forces, mass, charge...

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov I do not believe he does so exclusively since I expect everyone to be under much heavier influence of existing theories than we all are aware of at first. The conclusion that our arm is not bent using your proposed method discards the alternative thesis that our arm somehow does not feel it's bending when in water and somehow looks different when viewed from different angles. There are scientific theories lurking in our thoughts everywhere.

Yes, I admit that what other people tell you may influence your thoughts. You can still at least try to not believe everything anyone says.

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Unobservables like electrons, quarks, fields, forces, mass, charge...

But you can observe those. You can either measure an electron's position or its momentum, but in either case you know it is there. You can see the force in the effect it has on an object; Toss a rock in the air and it will come back down. If something affects something else, you can observe it. If it does not, then it does not really exist for most purposes.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel But you can observe those. You can either measure an electron's position or its momentum, but in either case you know it is there. You can see the force in the effect it has on an object; Toss a rock in the air and it will come back down. If something affects something else, you can observe it. If it does not, then it does not really exist for most purposes.

Sorry but you cannot observe those (given they exist). You can observe an effect of a property of the so-called electron on an instrument. You don't observe the force on an object, you see only the rock, moving(accelerating). (I will add that according to General Relativity, gravity as a force does not exist!!)

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Sorry but you cannot observe those (given they exist). You can observe an effect of a property of the so-called electron on an instrument. You don't observe the force on an object, you see only the rock, moving(accelerating).

What would you call observing, then? You can't really directly observe the rock or the instrument either. Only the light reflecting (and issuing) from them. Or more accurately, the reactions the light causes in your eyes. It is entirely possible to observe things indirectly, from the effects they have on other things.

Originally Posted by JrKASperov (I will add that according to General Relativity, gravity as a force does not exist!!)

To tell the truth, I had forgotten all about that. Embarassing. Eh, Newton's laws are accurate enough for rock throwing.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel What would you call observing, then? You can't really directly observe the rock or the instrument either. Only the light reflecting (and issuing) from them. Or more accurately, the reactions the light causes in your eyes. It is entirely possible to observe things indirectly, from the effects they have on other things.

You are inputting problems that aren't there since you have put how we see already in a framework of theory(that of the biology of our eye).

However, in philosophy of science, observing is only by our direct senses. As in your example, we don't see the force or the electron, only the consequences of those theoretical constructs.

[Firestormalpha]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/62337?GT1=10450

Interesting article about "why" we believe in the supernatural. Not sure how much stock I'd put into it, I only skimmed it, but food for thought none the less.

As for the "experiment" (and I use that term loosely), in the beginning of the article, there's no way of assure which is cause and which is effect. It's all based on how the man read the results.

[Kakero]

Q : Do you believe that Ghosts exist.
A : No
Q : Why?
A : Because I haven't seen it and so it doesn't exist.

Q : Do you believe that God exist?
A : Yes
Q : Why? Is it because you have seen God before?
A : .....

[Iron Greasel]

JrKASperov:
Hmh. I suppose that if you only choose to allow observing with your direct senses, the things you mentioned are indeed unobservable.

Firestormalpha:
Fascinating, especially the bit about dopamine.

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Kakero Q : Do you believe that Ghosts exist. A : No Q : Why? A : Because I haven't seen it and so it doesn't exist. Q : Do you believe that God exist? A : Yes Q : Why? Is it because you have seen God before? A : .....

Q : Do you believe that God exists.
A : No
Q : Why?
A : Because I haven't seen God and so He doesn't exist.

Q : Do you believe the big bang happened?
A : Yes
Q : Why? Is it because you have seen it happen?
A : .....

[Jaradu]

We're seeing the big bang happen right now. It's never stopped happening. We weren't there at the start, but we can trace the movements of the galaxies backwards through time based on their degree of red shift, and they all converge at one point. Does it matter that we weren't there at the start?