cruisername
yeah right, they'll fix your KDE 2 install on freebsd in a jiffy as well
Until then I'm not sure that "only the criminals can search for burning buildings on the Internet" is really the most pragmatic answer.
It's not a pragmatic answer, it's a matter of fact. NSCIA are busy collecting phone calls and developing backdoors. I'd be careful calling anyone criminal.
I get where you are coming from, sure there are arguments for it, but it's not like there are none against it, either.
Seems i was wrong calling it inarguable, in fact i like to argue back and forth a lot.
> observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective").
no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on an individual level.
> an interesting question, but not really about science. Science concerns itself only with things that can be reduced to empirical observation, not belief.
Specifically by including subjectivity through empiricism, you in fact beget belief. I.e. measurements have an inherit uncertainty and you do what you can to reduce it.
> but the basic scientific precept is the null hypothesis, the idea that things without evidence are assumed to be false
You seem to fall for the fallacy of negated implication. My best guess is, the Null Hypothesis really states that evidence implies reality.
Or as my teacher put it, just because it didn't rain, the street doesn't have to be dry. It's hard to explain and I'm tired, sorry. I often fall for it, too.
Or it depends on what we mean when we say believe. The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science.
> In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite.
alright, but the word of god himself isn't evidence enough? j/k :)
> In religion, something is true until evidence proves it false. In science, something is false until evidence proves it true -- exactly the opposite.
Why do those have to opposite, can't they be reconciled into one, using some form of ternary logic? Edit: I mean, some things in life are unknown until proven true or false and then theres all kinds of methods to counter the fact.