causation (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 17:48 (3617 days ago) @ GateKeeper

truth is like how your monism fits the conclusion of "god". 
While my outlook can be quite monistic, my only claim is that it is a better description than dualism and pluralism (the philosophical version). And it is my claim for me. -> err. you brought up a current legal system rom. Why? I mean we are using it, that's empirical. And we should keep trying to make it better. So I am lost to your point there. Politics and science don't mix. I wish they did really. 
I brought it up because it deals with proof. It talks about beyond a reasonal doubt for criminal law and a lower standard of balance of probabilities - civil law.-I am not complaining about the legal system, but simply using an example of how proof is used. When an innocent man is incarcerated because of "proof" is it proof?
> Science is observation and data collection. Scientist draw the conclusions on that data. Again, science and scientist is like Accounting and accountant. I explained why I like to make that clear. I don't think it is unreasonable. can you explain why you think it is? or at seems to like that too me
Science is more than observation ... it also includes reconciliation with hypotheses. It may draw conclusions but the process itself does not come to a conclusion (proof).
 
> "proof". you only have "disproof". I know that don't I. You have "nothing is "real". I have "if it is all fake, then what we have is as real as it gets". That is scary, I understand.
No I don't have nothing is real. Absolutely wrong. For me everything is real. It is my perceptions and conclusions (and those of others even more so) that I don't trust and consider them likely as illusory.-You mentioned there is no such thing as the colour white. You could take that argument even further to any colour ... no matter how monochromatic it is. And yet there is a reality beyond my perception.