then why was newton's theories superseded?
Newton's theories were superseded because honest scientists found out that what he had presented wasn't the whole truth. They were able to test this tangibly and come to a unanimous and universal recognition that this was the case. The point is that for somebody with a biased tie with Newton's theories who didn't want them to be superseded,
it would be a virtual impossibility to hold up Newton's findings as the dominant theory in the face of the rest of the scientific community. Refining is automatic in science, this is what GhostofMaxwell has been saying as well.
generally people don't see people dropping dead or getting chronically sick yet they still accept the words of their doctor.
generally people don't seriously investigate the success rate of the repairs of their local car mechanic yet they still take their car there to get repaired.
generally people do not go to university to become even partially conversant with law when they run into legal difficulties, yet immediately consult a solicitor.
so to get back to the issue that you didn't address, what evidence does a person have access to in determining the validity/falsity of claims in physics?
(surely if you advocate such a view, it would be easy for you to find the error in the chart I posted - its not like you can say "I cannot say because I am not properly versed in chemistry", especially if you don't want to violate the standards of being "rational" that you established earlier
Let's get back to the issue that
you addressed, of which all these issues are subsequent to, including the issue I apparently "didn't address": you think that by reading a scientific journal, a reader is taking the findings on faith. In the examples you gave, you would say that the patient is taking the word of the doctor on faith; that the driver, by taking his/her car to the mechanic, is having faith in the mechanic's abilities. MY POINT, that you so contradictorily ask for then ignore, is that these are not instances of faith, and neither is the scenario with the scientist; these acceptances are derived from common sense. If a doctor said to a particular patient, "You will not drop dead because of this illness," then drops dead soon after because of that illness, it's safe to say no rational person would go to that doctor without hesitation. If a mechanic returned a car to a customer only to have it break down before leaving the lot, that customer most likely wouldn't return to that mechanic.
This is analogous to the grounds upon which the scientific community's honesty is gained and reinforced constantly; it is done through common sense derived from a collective consciousness that has proven itself to be trustworthy on objective and universal terms, NOT faith. Gah, it's amazing how you can't wrap your mind around this concept.
still can't find the error on the chart eh?
what does that make you then?
if its "automatic" just find the error on the chart, doofus.
I apologize for my insults, it's just that you beg them so easily. Of course I can't find the error in the chart, as you said, I'm not up to speed in that area of study. I could show you thousands of diagrams where you don't know what is going on either. That's entirely aside the point though (hence "wtf mate, completely irrelevant"); if I were to take that chart seriously, then I would first get the expert analysis of
several different scientists who would be able to explain to me via objective processes and in layman terms what is wrong with it (if there's anything wrong with it in the first place) before ever claiming to know the answer to your insidious question.
are we having the same conversation?
religion works on a similar foundation - there are claims not only of direct perception of god but also claims of how to come to the position of direct perception
We are having the same conversation, but you insist on bending it into a circle. I've already fully provided sufficient commentary on this trite statement of yours-- bolding it, underlining it, resizing it, and coloring it will not make your sentence any more meaningful. (But look on the bright side, it can't make it less either, for it is already vacuous of relevance.)
i am not talking about that - I am talking about classical empiricism, which holds that anything that is real can be demonstrated to the senses (in other words is ultimately reducible to material components)
Don't try to verbally acrobat yourself out of the ring via an apparently dramatic difference in what versions of empiricism we're talking about, my points still rest easy.
Out of curiosity though, can you tell me of anything that is real that
can't be demonstrated to the senses?
how do you propose to falsify/validate something that has either a cause or effect beyond your sense perception (feel free to call on the resources of all the grade 3's in the universe)
EXACTLY. Science is a
universal account of sense perception, hence it is
collectively applicable; it absolves the problem of possible a cause and effect scenario that MY UNIQUE sense perception interprets differently, cannot go, or hasn't gone yet. The only rebuttal I can imagine to this would be to question the validity of our sense perceptions (and hence our objective processes of acquiring this universal account) in the first place. But EVEN IF we are ALL wrong and faulty in our sense perceptions from some metaphysical perspective, then this doesn't debase said collective account because it is what we have to work under.
Another point of mine you've reinforced with your statement is that the metaphysical realm that you are so adamant about imagining would by definition be beyond our sense perception. So, if you are undervaluing our entire sensory input concerning THIS realm (which you are not doing a very good job of), you have done
exponentially more so with your metaphysical realm.
there is nothing that hints that consciousness is materially reducible, so its not clear why you advocate a POV that denies the existence of this possibility (unless its simply an issue of faith)
A perfect example of you smearing someone else's knowledge about something that you don't know about as "faith"; THERE IS PLENTY that hints that consciousness is materially reducible. PLENTY. Go do some research on quantum mechanics and the brain.
sorry thats just the way knowledge works - if you want to understand physics, it is best to study and abide by the foundations of physics - if you want to understand transcendental knowledge, it is best to abide by the foundations of transcendental knowledge - it seems you don't so much have an issue with god/religion but instead have issues with how knowledge works
But that's the problem right there;
transcendental knowledge. Physics has an origin of study which its roots are firmly planted in (the material realm), while transcendental study, once again by definition, finds its roots in whatever and wherever the scholar wishes to derive it from. Sorry, that's just the way reality works. (That last sentence was a jibe using your own words, I would never myself apologize for the way something works unless it was something I knew the other person couldn't agree with because they were made up by my own terms.)
Of COURSE you are going to assume that transcendental knowledge is false, since you assume that material reductionism has all bases covered
It takes much more assumption to envision a metaphysical existence and deny the obvious and tangible world we operate in than it would for me to assume against that, were I assuming in the first place. I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply deriving from rationality and evidence.
Once again, as far as I can tell, the materialistic view
does all of reality covered. You have yet to convince me even slightly otherwise.
then your next challenge would be to provide normative descriptions to validate that claim
Exactly, which is why I brought up the scenario; you
can't provide normative descriptions to validate my claim, and the same goes for your claim of your imagined metaphysical realm.
Reductionism in your sense is somebody who attempts to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts, ignoring the whole. Reductionism in my sense of the word is synonymous with an honest desire to understand how things work, the whole being tackled only after the prerequisite smaller understandings are firmly in place.
