p0lka
Illuminator
If it doesn't exist, how are we having this discussion.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Does anything exist?
- Thread starter Scorpion
- Start date
Scorpion
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 3,829
So you understand 'reality' and the 'real-world'. I don't know if that means you have a degree in nuclear physics, and can understand everything we perceive to be real. But as far as I understand things everything is energy converted into atomic particles.
Usually when people talk about 'reality' I figure they mean the world they can see and feel and hear, not the whirling vibrating world of particles.
The science you are so fond of continually makes new discoveries like the discovery of new particles, and the recent discoveries about dark matter. These new revelations change our previous viewpoint. Often proving previous theories were wrong. I suspect this will continue to happen, so it is as well to keep an open mind about the nature of 'reality' I am not adverse to evidence based enquiry. Only to falling into the trap of assuming we have explained everything sufficiently to stop speculating.
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
No one has suggested we stop speculating. The objection is that you keep making unsupported statements of fact.
Scorpion
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 3,829
My life experiences have clearly been different to most others on this forum. I have spent many years in spiritualist churches searching for psychic truths that no psychiatrists seemed to know anything about. As far as I am concerned I found answers, and after many evidential messages from my departed relatives I came to believe in the spirit world. But I don't want to go on about it on this thread.
Which theories have been proved wrong?
It's very rare that scientific theories are proved entirely wrong. In fact I can't think of a single example.
What happened hundreds of years ago with "theories" like “phlogiston” and the "luminiferous aether", which are the two that are usually raised with claims like yours, is that (a) that was several hundred years ago at a time when modern science was in it's infancy with 99.9% of what we know know still undiscovered (so at the time they did not have much to go on), and (b) neither of those ideas was actually entirely “wrong” … that is – the details were wrong, but the basic idea was actually more-or-less correct and on the right track. But also, (c) they were not really “Theories” in the sense which science means today … they were little more than speculative ideas of the time.
The other one which comes up time & time again from anti-science people, is of course Newtons Theory of Gravity, where it's said that 200 years later he was proved “wrong” by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. But what Newton discovered and worked out mathematically was not of course entirely wrong, but rather that it was an extremely accurate model for how gravity works on the scale of things on Earth. What Einstein discovered over 200 years later is that Newtons discovery was actually only a very good approximation that ceased to be entirely accurate when you get to the scale of super-massive objects in space (plants and stars etc.).
You seem to think that all sorts of major theories are constantly being ripped up as completely wrong/untrue. But that is not the case. In fact that's the compete opposite of being the case … in fact none of the theories have had to be discarded wholesale in that way.
Belz...
Fiend God
It's not very interesting or useful, though. I prefer the "objective reality" standard.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why the quotation marks?
You have a pretty stupid conception of "understanding".
Who cares what they mean? The fact of the matter is that particles are part of the actual picture.
Do you really think that learning new things means you understood nothing before?
Yes, whereas your method is based on nothing and can ignore new evidence to maintain its ideas, therefore being "perfect" by virtue of never adapting.
Belz...
Fiend God
Nobody cares. If you're unable to prove any of it, then it's worthless. And if it's worth something only for you, then it might as well not exist. The "method" you think is so precious actually devalues your experiences.
Larry; you do not describe how science works. Afaik, you are not qualified to do that. You do not have enough education in science to pontificate on internet forums telling people what science is, what it is not, what it can do, what it can't do etc. You can say whatever you like (especially on the internet), but it just makes you look silly when you try to characterise science with erroneous descriptions and mistaken uniformed beliefs.
There is no such thing as "scientific truth". To believe that is to be about as wrong and misguided as anyone can possibly be. Things are either true, or else they are not. The word itself describes an "absolute", ie no possibility of dispute. But science does not claim absolute truth ... it's not claiming literal certainties. It does not need to do that. It's more than enough (much more!) for science to show how and why a particular explanation is likely to be true, or likely to be very close to correct.
Yes, science is open to change, of course. But that is almost always because new discoveries are made (they were trying to make those discoveries, it was not an accident or a stroke of luck) which add new details, new information and new insights ... it's not because what went before was "wrong".
The reason our understanding changes is precisely because in science we are constantly devising new improved ways to study all aspects of the world more deeply and more accurately.
It's not "philosophy" to "To extend any such claims beyond the observations". Science does not stop with just some recorded data ... in every case, scientists try their best to explain what the data shows us about the universe around us ... they are drawing conclusions from the data to explain what they believe to be the best or mostly likely explanation for any of the observations ... that's why we do any of the experiments! It's not "philosophy" just because you try to show what the observations probably tell us about the world ... when you say things like that it gives away your game of again trying to claim that everything is "philosophy". You say that you like science and appreciate it's value to the world, but then as soon as you start to explain & comment on that, it becoems clear to everyone that you are actually trying to denigrate the achievements of science, and trying to down-play it, in order to squeeze in some sort of alternative mystical new-age beliefs of your own.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
To be honest, that's fair regarding not wanting to derail this thread and I apologise to you and everyone else for my attempt to derail it. However I would very much like to continue this discussion. How about we move it to one of your threads regarding your beliefs, like the spirituality one?
I think the discussion needs to stay right the **** here until any of the "Philosophizers" can explain how Scorpion's ramblings aren't a perfectly valid form of philosophy.
If "Everything is philosophy! So you're doing philosophy! So you can't complain about philosophy!" is going to be their go-to answer for everything, make them own it.
No. Scorpion is doing perfectly valid philosophy until a valid argument is made otherwise.
If "Everything is philosophy! So you're doing philosophy! So you can't complain about philosophy!" is going to be their go-to answer for everything, make them own it.
No. Scorpion is doing perfectly valid philosophy until a valid argument is made otherwise.
Belz...
Fiend God
If authentic frontier gibberish is philosophy, then we've already conceded that philosophy is useless.
And that's always been my issue.
People who dismiss Woo but rush in to defend the honor of "Philosophy" need to come clean.
Jabba lamb bleating for 5 years that an exact copy of him wouldn't be the same therefore he's immortal was exactly, precisely, without any modifiers as intellectually meaningful as "The Hard Problem of Consciousness which is totally serious you guys because it read about it a big book that was bound in leather and smelled old and dusty and it used big words and Latin and was written by an official certified philosopher who died before we discovered indoor plumbing so it's like... super serious guys."
The difference is in tone, not in intellectual content.
People who dismiss Woo but rush in to defend the honor of "Philosophy" need to come clean.
Jabba lamb bleating for 5 years that an exact copy of him wouldn't be the same therefore he's immortal was exactly, precisely, without any modifiers as intellectually meaningful as "The Hard Problem of Consciousness which is totally serious you guys because it read about it a big book that was bound in leather and smelled old and dusty and it used big words and Latin and was written by an official certified philosopher who died before we discovered indoor plumbing so it's like... super serious guys."
The difference is in tone, not in intellectual content.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I once studied philosophy, and have largely given it up and tossed much of it, in part because so much does seem to be useless gibberish,and so many seem to feel that the point of it is to come up with something new when they cannot get closer to something true. Too many people seem to use the term for excursions into the imagination or delusion, or excuses for sloppy thought.
But I am not entirely convinced that this is the fault of philosophy or that it makes some basic philosophical questions nonsense. Part of the job of philosophy is to figure out what things are worth talking about and what are pointless junk. One might, for example, consider that it is a fundamental matter of ontology that renders the question of the original post spurious sophistry, and some of the subsequent digressions unworthy of serious discussion.
But I am not entirely convinced that this is the fault of philosophy or that it makes some basic philosophical questions nonsense. Part of the job of philosophy is to figure out what things are worth talking about and what are pointless junk. One might, for example, consider that it is a fundamental matter of ontology that renders the question of the original post spurious sophistry, and some of the subsequent digressions unworthy of serious discussion.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
But that's akin to saying that all drugs are medicines just because all medicines are drugs. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and it's patently obvious that's what you're doing.
I agree the hard problem of consciousness is gibberish, but that doesn't mean I think all philosophy is gibberish, even all philosophical debates on consciousness.
There are plenty of philosophers with perfectly reasonable and well constructed arguments that are valid, even important to discuss. Just because you decide that philosophy is bunk doesn't make it so.
I agree the hard problem of consciousness is gibberish, but that doesn't mean I think all philosophy is gibberish, even all philosophical debates on consciousness.
There are plenty of philosophers with perfectly reasonable and well constructed arguments that are valid, even important to discuss. Just because you decide that philosophy is bunk doesn't make it so.
Again if "Well everything is philosophy!" is the go-to answer, of course there's going to be "good philosophy." You couldn't make a more meaningless statement if you took first in the Making Meaningless Statements contest held on the Making Meaningless Statements Equinox with your brand new Making Meaningless Statements machine.
"But there's good philosophy too!" isn't an argument IF EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY.
Again until one of the Philosophy Fanclub can describe the difference between good and bad philosophy (or the difference between philosophy and just yelling at squirrels in the park) without:
- Invoking tone and style, not intellectual context
- "It's philosophy because a philosopher said so..."
- Just vaguely referring to philosophy as a concept's reputation and pedigree
then concede that there really isn't a point here.
- Invoking tone and style, not intellectual context
- "It's philosophy because a philosopher said so..."
- Just vaguely referring to philosophy as a concept's reputation and pedigree
then concede that there really isn't a point here.
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
1. Who is making that argument anyway? If someone is stating in this thread that everything is philosophy then I must have missed it.
2. If this grinds your gears so much why don't you just...go away? Not in a harsh way, but why on earth are you so obviously itching for a fight over something so inconsequential?
3. Even if the above argument about everything being philosophy IS being made by people here and even if that DOES somehow matter, how does that make your kneejerk condemnation of all philosophy any better again? You're still the one insisting that philosophy is all nonsense. You're still the one raising a hue and cry and stating that all philosophy is a waste of time. Even if other people are saying stupid things that doesn't make YOUR stupid thing any less stupid.
2. If this grinds your gears so much why don't you just...go away? Not in a harsh way, but why on earth are you so obviously itching for a fight over something so inconsequential?
3. Even if the above argument about everything being philosophy IS being made by people here and even if that DOES somehow matter, how does that make your kneejerk condemnation of all philosophy any better again? You're still the one insisting that philosophy is all nonsense. You're still the one raising a hue and cry and stating that all philosophy is a waste of time. Even if other people are saying stupid things that doesn't make YOUR stupid thing any less stupid.
Well yeah. To the point that I'm not going to take that seriously.
Well one because I don't want to and don't have to ******* justify why to you or anyone else.
And two for the exact reason I don't ignore conspiracy theories, religious dogma, pseudoscience, and other forms of woo. Standing by watching the intellectual bar get lowered more and more is not something I do.