Darren Andres

American dissident. I'd rather be corrected than wrong, truth is greater than utility. What's 'good' anyway?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@michaer27 @darwintojesus P2. In my view 'knowledge' exists as a 'transcendent object of value'.

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

What I've got here, is on empty assertion of yours.

-you said it's bad faith when people drift into realms that are wildly esoteric with their why questions.

I asked what you mean by what is 'wildly esoteric' so that we could both avoid it.

-so I'll ask you again, what are you referring to when you use the term 'wildly esoteric'?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

"being ""wildly esoteric"" is 'bad faith'... And just have faith I know what that means"

[EVILpartyOfficial @TheHonestEvil]

@Darrandre @darwintojesus Pretty much and by the time you get down to asking "well how do you know anything?" In any discussion outside of wildlybesoteric philosophy discussions (and sometimes even then) you're demonstrating that you aren't actually interested in the discussion and are acting in bad faith

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Right. And in that situation, would that *confirm the hypothesis to be factualy false?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil What makes something 'scientific' outside of the scientific method?

-what? Is this a 'wildly esoteric' question to ask?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

Believing a distinction exists without a reason is rational when?

[EVILpartyOfficial @TheHonestEvil]

@Darrandre @darwintojesus And ti make this distinction again. A claim being scientific and the scientific method are different thjngs.

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus And this is you're description of how scientists 'fail to falsify' a hypothesis, right?

So then, what would it mean if they 'succeed in falsifying' a hypothesis?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus "No it doesn't, science doesn't "prove" anything. It fails to falsify it."

-what do you mean when you say science 'fails to falsify'?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus But my question to you is what would you even be looking to falsify without a hypothesis?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus You keep asserting this, what reason do you have to believe that's true?

-what's the distinction between the two?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus And by the way, observation, and testing, these are two steps of the scientific method.

-is it your perspective that only half of the scientific method is required for something to be considered 'scientific' outside of the scientific method??

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Falsification works towards the ends of confirmation.

But my question to you is what would you even be looking to falsify without a hypothesis?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Or from your perspective, would asking how can we know when something is becoming 'wildly esoteric', a 'wildly esoteric' question for you?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

No worries. Happens all the time. Just wanted to ensure I was understanding you correctly.

-and in the spirit of understanding you fully, let me ask, how can we know if we are beginning to venture into what you call wildly esoteric realms?

That way we can both clearly avoid being 'bad faith' with each other.

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus That sounds pretty fascinating. But I'm wondering from your perspective, what exactly would be considered 'scientific' without going through the 'scientific method'?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

If information takes place, 'out there', then where does 'meaning' occur?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus That's interesting. Is it your belief, that something can be qualified as 'scientific', without going through the 'scientific method'?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus "wildlybesoteric" did you mean wildly esoteric?

[Darren Andres @Darrandre]

@TheHonestEvil @darwintojesus Right. But you're missing step two. Hypothesis. Are you familiar with what a valid hypothesis is compared to an invalid hypothesis?