pleb

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by pleb 12y ago

   I agree with Matt, There is no quantity of correlation that promotes one iota of certainty or probability. The issue is Matt, many people like this gentlemen here actually believe that scientific experimentation offers explanations. How man
2. 2.▲
   by pleb 12y ago

   "The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality." Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be
3. 3.▲
   by pleb 12y ago

   I agree that we do not disagree. Your post is simply applying a different definition to the terms I used. Your reply is a case for righteousness. I don't think you have considered the implications of the use of such words as "good
4. 4.▲
   by pleb 12y ago

   I couldn't edit, so I'll reply, but this mind bending quote really sums up the limitations of logic and observation. "Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of
5. 5.▲
   by pleb 12y ago

   The problem is that causation is an oxymoron. The measurement problem is the same as the problem of induction. Max Planck understood this, read his quotes on matter. No amount of correlation increases the probability of one event followed b