Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alice: I believe in dogs.
Bob: You are wrong.

1) Dogs are real and Bob is right while Alice is wrong.
2) Dogs are not real and Bob is wrong about Alice being wrong.

Alice: 2+2=6.
Bob: You are wrong, 2+2=5.

1) Bob is right about Alice being wrong but is himself about what is right as pertaining to the problem Alice attempted to solve.


Conclusion: It depends on the question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You wouldn't, which is why when someone tries to make an argument that consists of "you're wrong" it's usually time to just walk away.

I know, but it is usally because they believe themeleves to be right.

Originally posted by inimalist
This is why you must generate a null hypothesis (what you would predict if your hypothesis was wrong) and test that in science.

You can never prove that something is absolutly right, as there might be a better, unknown, explanation. You can only show that alternative explanations must be false.

But what if the hypothesis is representative of something that is devoid of reasoning, such as the reason in which one is going about finding a hypothesis. If one is absolutely sure about what they are looking for, and who they are, then there should be no reason to continue testing someone, unless of course the person they are testing is not who they claim to be...I mean we each should have an accurate understanding of what it is what we're doing before we test something, and make sure it falls within reasonable guidelines.

Originally posted by Thundar
But what if the hypothesis is representative of something that is devoid of reasoning,

I don't know if that is worded correctly, do you mean to ask "what if the hypothesis represents something which is without the faculties of reason?" or "what if the hypothesis represents something which reason cannot solve?"

each has a different answer, though, I'm generally confused as to what you mean...

Originally posted by Thundar
such as the reason in which one is going about finding a hypothesis.

well, the reason someone is proposing a hypothesis isn't necessarily a tangible thing, but that doesn't mean that a) it is about something that can't reason, or b) not solvable by reason...

The problem is, there is a huge difference between "reason" and "science". "Reason" is a philosophical concept birthed from the Enlightenment based around the supremecy of European intellects over the "barbaric" or "noble" savage. Science is a specific and constantly changing methodology. So, I guess this is a long winded way of saying it is really unimportant (unless one wishes to specifically study why researchers are motivated to study what they do) as to why a researcher is motivated in the way they are, as the method of science will, eventually, detect and correct conclusions a researcher may have come to through "reason" alone, through specific methodology that is not the same as the faculty of reason, at all.

The closest thing you would be describing is called researcher bias, and might actually touch on something called the "file drawer effect", where studies with null (negative) results are not published because they aren't as flashy to the journals, or because they often serve as disconforming evidence to the theses held by journal publishers. These are valid issues, and there is really no empirical way to address them yet, but, the most important thing to note would be that: compared with any other way of discerning evidence about the universe, science is the only one which is able to best correct science, which is itself the best at producing models ment to represent the physical world. So, even when there are pitfalls, there is no other real option other than using the methods developed within science to show its own limitations (which many people within the scientific community do, and make a career out of).

Originally posted by Thundar
If one is absolutely sure about what they are looking for, and who they are, then there should be no reason to continue testing someone,

there is never any way to be absolutly sure. This is why, again, science differs from reason. Science is, by its design, a work in progress, whereas people subjectively seek absolutes.

There is always reason to continue testing, because we can't know we are right, in fact, probability says it is close to 100% certain we are wrong.

Originally posted by Thundar
unless of course the person they are testing is not who they claim to be...

what a strange qualification...

how could you possibly know if what you are testing is what it claims to be without further testing?

Originally posted by Thundar
I mean we each should have an accurate understanding of what it is what we're doing before we test something, and make sure it falls within reasonable guidelines.

there are pre-experiment power analyses that can be done to determine how likely positive results would be, and all research must be approved through a board, so everyone knows what they are looking for before they start....

however, I really get the feeling you are less interested in the philosophy behind statistical analysis and are more interested in some bizarre spiritual affirmations...

Originally posted by inimalist
however, I really get the feeling you are less interested in the philosophy behind statistical analysis and are more interested in some bizarre spiritual affirmations...




*Praises the Lord*

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I guess it's all subjective. We all think we're right, don't we?

We all think we are right, but that doesn't help when when make the wrong turn. Sometimes you have to make sure you know nothing before you know something. Then you will know, what you don't know, because what you don't know, may hurt you. -Goku

We don't know what we don't know, so we should be sensative to that. Even Scientists understand that there are spots that we really don't know what we don't know. So, even what we think we know, we really don't know, we just think we know. Wow, what a trip. LOl

I think I should put this drink down now.

ermm

There is a God and you are all going to HELL haermm

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
There is a God and you are all going to HELL haermm

Nah, I am going to the first degree of glory....perhaps the second.

RJ - awesome sigs lately man!

Originally posted by inimalist
RJ - awesome sigs lately man!



Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I am going to the first degree of glory....perhaps the second.

Isn't there like....seven circles and shit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Alice: I believe in dogs.
Bob: You are wrong.

1) Dogs are real and Bob is right while Alice is wrong.
2) Dogs are not real and Bob is wrong about Alice being wrong. Alice is right that she believes in dogs and bob is wrong in trying to tell her she doesn't really believe in them.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi




Isn't there like....seven circles and shit?

If you're thinking of the "Divine Comedy," there are nine circles in Dante's Inferno and then nine spheres in Dante's Paradiso.

Originally posted by magicturtle
I believe it would be A+A=6

So A = 3?

you did a good job
nice to see you
thank you

Either you are right or wrong.But it is possible that both persons are wrong but that person will not admit it and think that they are right.So either way it never gets solved.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Either you are right or wrong.But it is possible that both persons are wrong but that person will not admit it and think that they are right.So either way it never gets solved.

What if the truth is not known?

Then no one is right or wrong.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Then no one is right or wrong.

That is not true.

I put a coin in a box. Then, I and ask two people what coin did I put in the box? These two people do not know what coin I put in the box, so they guess. If both their guesses are wrong, it does not mean there are no coins in the box. The ignorance of the people involved does not effect the fact that I placed a coin in the box. All it means is that both guesses were wrong. In other words, it is possible for there to be a right, and everyone be wrong about it.

That is true then everyone is wrong and you are right because you did in fact put a coin in a box and all the people have to do is look in the box to see the coin and be right.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is true then everyone is wrong and you are right because you did in fact put a coin in a box and all the people have to do is look in the box to see the coin and be right.

But what if I hide the box and go on vacation?

lol you got me there!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
lol you got me there!

Anyway got to go outside and get a tan.Talk to you tomorrow!

both people can be wrong if there is only one answer that is correct, based on facts or measureable things.

Hopefully