UK Census 2011

[worm]

Whether the theory behind that science is 100% correct or not can ultimately be ignored. The 'why' it works is of little importance to the fact that it DOES work. The working proves the science, irrespective of the theory.

[eFestivals]

That's a classic. The theory is cultural knowledge. It didn't get that way in the exact same way as a scientist theorised, either. It got that way because a maker followed instructions based upon an inventors trial and error, you complete imbocile.

What's more, a television is an entirely cultural invention and completely depends upon cultural knowledge to make.

But that's not what I've been talking about anyway. I'm talking about science telling us the reason of how and why we're here. It can't do it without a theory because there's nothing to prove or disprove, is there.

Trial and error creates knowledge. You don't know what to trial without a theory though.

You've completely missed the point.

There are theories - NOT trial and error - which have led to developments in the technical side of (say) TVs (pick another product if you wish - if you like, the CERN particle accelerator). Yes, I completely get that those theories grow out of cultural ideas.

The theory will say "it will do X because of Y". They may or may not have theorised correctly the 'why' of what happens (time will tell with this, I guess).

But irregardless of whether the theory is giving the right reasons for the 'why' of what happens, the thing that happens DOES happen. You turn on your TV, and you get a colour picture via a digital signal (which was very definitely something that was not purely from trial and error). What was expected to happen has happened.

It doesn't prove beyond all doubt the theory, but it DOES prove beyond all doubt the technical conclusions - that a particular thing will happen if you do X, Y & Z.

So those technical conclusions are proven as correct. And so the result of those technical conclusions are shown to be completely free of cultural influences - unless you're stupidly going to argue that a person watching TV is a part of the technical ideas* and so cultural, or that the idea of of being free of cultural influences is itself cultural (which is just pathetically pointless).

(* which takes us into the realm where only "is it or is it not a delusion that you see a picture?" becomes the consideration, where all discussion becomes meaningless because the discussion has the exact same 'delusion' question which cannot be answered; we operate EVERYTHING on the basis that such things are NOT delusions - such as what you're arguing. So you can't take this line with your argument unless you're going to disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke)

[eFestivals]

Yeah, that's why its called trail and error. Can't get to trial it without a theory though and don't get any results without culture.

the results themselves are free of culture.

Something either 'is' or 'is not' - this is not cultural, it is reality.*

(* if you wish to dispute this, then you have no argument to dispute anything with. Your argument can not exist in reality if there is no reality).

If a TV works, it proves the 'is', and that 'is' is completely free of culture.

And so 'scientific result' (not the 'how' of how that result was got) is free of all culture.

[Donkey]

I went rummaging around the internet looking for the possibility of non-compliance with this Census and the implications.

There were 1.5 million forms not returned at the last census in 2001 and this led to 38 prosecutions. You can be fined up to £1000.

Some suggested forms of making it harder for Lockheed Martin are; Smearing a substance e.g. jam across the form. Obliterating all barcodes on the form. Filling in the form upside-down.

These may be considered purile but many people are concerned by the influence of the British Government on the daily lives of the citizens of this country.

I will now return you to the internet chest-beating and posturing that this thread has descended into.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Donkey

[worm]

Yes, I completely get that those theories grow out of cultural ideas.

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Something either 'is' or 'is not' - this is not cultural, it is reality.*

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

But irregardless of whether the theory is giving the right reasons for the 'why' of what happens, the thing that happens DOES happen.

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Which in turn popularises an approach to scientific endeavour and furthers a construct of knowledge. In short, it becomes our culture.

which is the complete opposite to what you've been saying up til now.

I don't know why you raised this example in relation to reality, as it isn't relevant.

yes it is. Existence is reality, it is not cultural.

It's only when we take a meaning from existence that it becomes cultural. Which gets to mean that 'scientific proof' - that something happens (but not the why it happens), that something 'is' - is not cultural.

What I'm talking about is that we have a theory (that we can go to the moon, that we can sail the seven sees, that we can fly) that leads us to scientific discovery (spaceshuttles, boats, planes) thus determining the world around us (our culture).

But you're entirely wrong.

Culture leads us to investigate things.

When we investigate things we get to discover things that are free of culture, that something 'is'. It is a reality - it is a part of the world around us, but nothing about it is cultural.

What we then take from that discovery - how we interpret it - is cultural.

But that middle part - where we get to discover that something 'is' - is a reality, free of culture, yet from science. Which proves the lie of what you've said, that everything about science is cultural.

And to bring it back to how we've got to here, it DOES get to mean that there's a substance to science which is absent from religious ideas. It has a firmer base, it has proof.

It's not got the possibility of being a self-invented delusion as is the case with every single religious idea that exists.

[Kowalski]

I went rummaging around the internet looking for the possibility of non-compliance with this Census and the implications.

There were 1.5 million forms not returned at the last census in 2001 and this led to 38 prosecutions. You can be fined up to £1000.

Some suggested forms of making it harder for Lockheed Martin are; Smearing a substance e.g. jam across the form. Obliterating all barcodes on the form. Filling in the form upside-down.

These may be considered purile but many people are concerned by the influence of the British Government on the daily lives of the citizens of this country.

I will now return you to the internet chest-beating and posturing that this thread has descended into.

[eFestivals]

It is cultural, as culture has assigned the question of whether it is or not with a significant value, as it has figured a gap in its knowledge.

It could not ask the question. And, more importantly, there wouldn't be a question to ask without culture.

Nope, completely wrong.

All of the questions are cultural, but existence itself* is not.

(* I'm not (particularly) meaning human existence. I'm meaning the existence of anything).

No doubt you'll deny it. I'll let you, and I'll ignore it.

Cos give it a few years and you'll be arguing exactly this, just as you've yesterday argued that science is trial and error when you've previously told me I'm stupid for saying just that to you. One day you might get to catch up.

[t8yman]

I just know I will forget to fill it in on Sunday...

[worm]

which is the complete opposite to what you've been saying up til now.

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

All of the questions are cultural, but existence itself* is not.

[worm]

You're artificially seperating reality and culture Neil. They aren't seperate. We see reality through a cultural lense and reality shapes our culture. We call this knowledge.

Here's a practical example of how evolutionary theory is actively shaping a cultural system of knowledge, that being linguistics in this instance.......

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=324725

Now my question is, why would we ever look into this without a specific theory of evolution? More importantly, the findings can only be said to be true or false according to the theory. There is no point at which the scientific framework being used can be said to be true or false, only sound or unsound, which depends entirely upon the theory being proven true or false. Axiomatic, positivist bollocks!

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

That isn't existence. It's the measurement of exsitence.

wrong. No measurement can be taken without something first existing. Existence is independent of everything.

No it isn't. Anything man made is culture. Absolutely anything at all that relates to knowledge is cultural because man made it. Everything.

anything made has come from culture. It's existence (once it exists) is independent of culture. Existence is independent of everything.

Science both informs culture and is informed by it. The reason is because it takes a man to theorise on the basis of logic (man made!) and exact a subsequent test (man made!) to tell him something about existence (man made!). What he comes to know enters into cultural knowledge, just as it informed the question in the first place.

Existence is independent of culture.

History tells me you'll say now that's wrong. History tells me you'll be trying to tell me this as tho it's some great insight you've had within 2 years - you've done that with near enough everything to date.

[eFestivals]

You're artificially seperating reality and culture Neil. They aren't seperate. We see reality through a cultural lense

how can anything be seen thru a cultural lens if it's not there?

Which means, by very simple and irrefutable logic, that a thing has to exist (in its own reality, if you like) before your or my reality can process it.

Existence is independent of everything.

Our awareness of a things' existence is something separate to that.

Existence 'just is'.

[worm]

wrong. No measurement can be taken without something first existing. Existence is independent of everything.

[eFestivals]

But what you're saying here is a measurement of existence, not existence itself. This is a scientific conclusion made through man's experience, thus it is cultural.

I ask you again: how can you measure something which isn't there?

[worm]

I ask you again: how can you measure something which isn't there?

[worm]

Which means, by very simple and irrefutable logic, that a thing has to exist (in its own reality, if you like) before your or my reality can process it.

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

If it isn't there, then it doesn't exist. What's the intended relevancy of this question?

Because - logically, rationally, linguistically, and in reality - if it is there then it does exist.

And that existence is independent of it being sensed as there - after all, it can't be sensed as there if it's not there. This very simple logic irrefutably proves the independence of existence.

God exists as a human concept. Evolution exists as a human concept. Neither exist in reality. They only exist as theories that have been build up through cultural knowledge.

Wrong.

Evolution *THEORY* exists as a human concept. That's merely the 'why' we think evolution happens.

Evolution itself happens. The process of evolution has been observed, and so it must exist. It couldn't be observed if it didn't exist.

The only logical counter to to this idea is to say "everything is delusion". Except you never can do - you would have disappeared up your own arse in a puff of smoke before the words could be delivered.

[worm]

Because - logically, rationally, linguistically, and in reality - if it is there then it does exist.

Edited March 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

wrong. All that you have to know that it's there is your sense. What you're suggesting is unscientific.

no it's not.

Either my senses work, or I'm deluded - and if I'm deluded then this discussion doesn't exist.

So, on the basis that I'm not deluded then my senses MUST work, and therefore if I'm able to know of something then it must exist. Given that this scenario is at the heart of all science then it cannot possibly be unscientific.

Without sensing anything, it isn't evident. You're going against your principle of evidence. As soon as you do that you're into believing shit that isn't there - the very thing you defile.

no I'm not. I know something is there because it IS there. As you said above, it's not there then it can't be known to be there.

This method gives irrefutable evidence of the existence of things, or a delusion ... but if things are delusions then so's this discussion, and everything is nothing, and you disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke.

So there is only one way forwards, the same forwards that you use to deduce what you have above (even tho it's wrong) - you can't say what I say is wrong when talking of this subject matter without it also making yourself wrong in your own mind; that is the only way that deductive logic [even deductive logic that gets the wrong answer] can work.

Your and my ideas here are both ideas that work from what has been (truly) sensed - you've sensed that we use senses to know of things; I've sensed that they can only be sensed if they actually exist.

Aye, that's what I said.

no you didn't. If you're going to pretend that you said something you didn't then there's no point trying to talk rationally to you.

Evolutionary theory is not the belief that evolution happens. It's the theory that we can use evolutionary evidence to make assertions about our origin to explain why we are what we are.

- of course, that's all new to me.

And it's of no relevance to what I said.

Is it bollocks. What kind of conclusion is that?

it is the only possible conclusion both linguistically and logically. You know, the same tools you're using to wrongly say I'm wrong.

We can let evidence guide us as to our development,

exactly - such as the evidence which proves the existence of things outside of any self. It's the same acceptance of evidence that has you wipe your arse after you shit; it's what you live by.

Apart from when you crawl up your own arse within discussions such as this of course, where you start out saying one things and as it gets knocked down you move elsewhere where you think you have firmer ground. And then find it's only sand as well. You might as well be imparting your deep knowledge (PMSL ) of football.

Edited March 25, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Either my senses work, or I'm deluded

[feral chile]

no it's not.

Either my senses work, or I'm deluded - and if I'm deluded then this discussion doesn't exist.

So, on the basis that I'm not deluded then my senses MUST work, and therefore if I'm able to know of something then it must exist. Given that this scenario is at the heart of all science then it cannot possibly be unscientific.

no I'm not. I know something is there because it IS there. As you said above, it's not there then it can't be known to be there.

This method gives irrefutable evidence of the existence of things, or a delusion ... but if things are delusions then so's this discussion, and everything is nothing, and you disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke.

So there is only one way forwards, the same forwards that you use to deduce what you have above (even tho it's wrong) - you can't say what I say is wrong when talking of this subject matter without it also making yourself wrong in your own mind; that is the only way that deductive logic [even deductive logic that gets the wrong answer] can work.

Your and my ideas here are both ideas that work from what has been (truly) sensed - you've sensed that we use senses to know of things; I've sensed that they can only be sensed if they actually exist.

no you didn't. If you're going to pretend that you said something you didn't then there's no point trying to talk rationally to you.

- of course, that's all new to me.

And it's of no relevance to what I said.

it is the only possible conclusion both linguistically and logically. You know, the same tools you're using to wrongly say I'm wrong.

exactly - such as the evidence which proves the existence of things outside of any self. It's the same acceptance of evidence that has you wipe your arse after you shit; it's what you live by.

Apart from when you crawl up your own arse within discussions such as this of course, where you start out saying one things and as it gets knocked down you move elsewhere where you think you have firmer ground. And then find it's only sand as well. You might as well be imparting your deep knowledge (PMSL ) of football.

Edited March 26, 2011 by feral chile