TED Community » Mark Meijer

Comments

• TEDCred score: +170.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 14 2013: Shamans are irrelevant too ;).
  
  Speaking of relevance, you're begging the question: Relevant to what? Perhaps you should ask yourself that about science. You yourself said that the field of science has a different application from philosophy. And like I said, science is about the way things function. That means: HOW. Do you understand? That's exactly what I've been trying to say.
  
  In short, science should stick to the HOW questions. Right on, that's the relevance of science. Try to avoid doublethink. And either admit that you don't have a clue about philosophy, or if you prefer, get a clue ;). I'm not a philosopher by the way. All I have is my common sense.
  
  Btw. I'm not against making assumptions, there's no avoiding it. I'm just against mistaking them for true knowledge or foundations of certainty.

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: - "IF SCIENCE HASNT FOUND AN ANSWER FOR A QUESTION, WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THEY NEVER WILL."
  
  Depends on the nature of the question. You want to keep philosophy or metaphysics or whatever else, out of science? Great! I'm all for it! By all means, let science stop making claims that are well outside its field. Go forth and enlighten the scientists.
  
  
  - "by the way "Science" is a method not a dogma, at least theoretically"
  
  I'm glad you added that last bit. If you recall, I posted a rather relevant quote about theory and practice.
  
  
  - "Whats Science claims is whats evidence has proved to be true."
  
  Yes, but what scientists claim is not.
  
  
  - "I believe your being way to philosophical in the way your use "certainty" perhaps be scholarly and define you interpretation of the word and how that coincides with your Idea."
  
  Certainty is a philosophical issue. At least admit that you're venturing into something you don't really understand (yet?), and misusing some vague gestalt of science to prop yourself up.
  
  
  See also:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa%27s_Trilemma
  
  And:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: - "If you want to ask questions without answers than keep studying your metaphysics."
  
  I don't study metaphysics, and I don't try to fill that gap with science.
  
  
  - " Ill be reasonable and accept Science And Philosophy as two distincts Fields with differant applications."
  
  If you consider them two distinct fields and are reasonable, then take that all the way even when it doesn't suit you. Claims about certainty and truth belong to philosophy, not science. Although if you ask me, I don't see how those two fields can really be isolated from eachother. And indeed, science tries to stand alone, and is making philosophical claims as a consequence. Like I said, I think that just might be exactly the problem here. In case you're actually interested:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
  
  
  - "This world of cause and effect that we live in can and is understood through the method of experiment and inquiry."
  
  Yes, cause and effect, and scientific inquiry and experiment, are about the way things are understood to function, and nothing else.
  
  
  - "Your assuming and/or taking faith in an alternate explanation of physical phenomena"
  
  Is that right? Are you really, really sure that I wasn't actually arguing against assumptions of certainty? Maybe it's you who assumes just a little too much.
  
  
  - "dont pull Science down with your voodoo, KEEP SCIENCE PURE!"
  
  Are you really, really sure that I wasn't arguing against science making voodoo claims? Maybe it's science that is contaminating itself by stepping outside of its mandate.

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: Maybe that's the problem, Keith. Science has declared philosophy dead (or at least Stephen Hawkin has). And maybe that's why science doesn't know what it's basing itself on. Either way it's not a foundation of certainty. There is no such thing. What you're talking about is not what I mean. I don't doubt that calculations can be extremely accurate and theories can have wonderful predictive power. What I mean is that we're confused about the kind of conclusions we think we can draw from that.
  
  Scientific models are functional tools, not statements about historical matter of fact or the nature of existence. Your argument against Richard Peachey was about the latter, take a look. And now you are trying to support that with arguments about the former, about functional models which do, indeed, tend to function quite well. Which is what science does best, and which was exactly my point. No need to try and convince me on that front.
  
  So either you don't really know what you're trying to say or what is being said, or you're just trying to win an argument any way you can, and aren't really interested in evaluating any feedback you receive. Or, most likely, all of the above. I'm sure it's good to know you've got fans though. At least someone thinks you're right, which is all that counts, right? But for someone who claims "Im a renegade trying to enlighten myself and the world around me", so far I don't really see a lot of honesty in your noble efforts to enlighten, and way too rigid allegiance to be called renegade. Perhaps the words you're looking for are "to convert" and "missionary". There often seems to be a lot of confusion about that too.
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Induction

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: I don't disagree with anything you just said at all. But the fact remains that science stuff is available and accessible enough for anyone who has an interest. Whether anyone actually does have an interest is a different matter (and this goes for anything, not just science), but I find the following statement of yours rather telling in this regard: "one has to make the effort and find out for one's self."
  
  If you can't be arsed to make the effort and find your own way in life, you have no one to blame but yourself. Maybe it simply means you don't actually have an interest. It's all out there if you'd care to find it, the rest is entirely up to you. Figure out what you really want and go do it, instead of watching and talking about other people who aren't doing it, or complaining about not being spoon-fed like a child and putting the responsibility elsewhere. It's your life and your choice.
  
  (I don't mean you specifically, I mean anyone in general)

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: There are no foundations of certainty, only assumptions of certainty.
  
  "In theory there is no difference between theory and
  practice. In practice there is." -- Yogi Berra

• A reply on Talk: Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

  Apr 13 2013: No, the problem is people don't realize that science is not a matter of certainty, but of probability and plausibility. And actually not even that. But most of all science is about functionality, it was never about truth. What you are is what is called a fundamentalist. A prevalent occurance in all walks of life.

• A reply on Talk: Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim

  Apr 7 2013: Maybe what Gerrit is saying is that the USA might actually not have been founded on the same ideals that are commonly assumed.
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim

  Apr 4 2013: Anti-American! Anti-Semite! Communist! Socialist! Conspiracy nut! Lunatic fringe! Holocaust denier!
  
  You are breeding hate and demonizing polarizers! Treason! Domestic terrorism! Asynchronous warfare! You are an imminent threat to national security!
  
  Off to guantanamo bay with you! Or to some country where you will get properly tortured, or where we can just send a predator drone after you.
  
  ;)
  
  Hear hear, Larry Lessig. If I worshipped heroes, you would certainly be one of them. It's sad that people should even get nervous or upset talking about this openly, even people who aren't new to rationally and persistently kicking at sacred structures that desperately need kicking. But it's good to see that it doesn't stop everyone. Nearly everyone, yes, but not everyone. Odds be damned. Because it's only against the odds as long as nearly everyone lets that stop them.
  
  Odds be damned. How do you want to live your life, is the only real question.