• 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?

This is what I mean when I say all philosophy is either solipsism or silly word games.

"X is true... IF you assume reality is actually a thing and the universe doesn't operate on random dream logic where cause and effect aren't a thing and we aren't all brains in jars" is just... what's the point of that modifier?

It's like saying "2+2=4... if you assume it won't magically change to 2+2=7 at any moment."
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
We concurr. I've spent the last 10+ pages stating why I think scientific claims are conditional - why do you think scientific claims are conditional? BTW, all scientific claims are conditional, but specifically, we can speak of those claims where the scientific method was applied impeccably.

(note: I am not interested in a Science v Philosophy knock-down. My above question to you only references science.)
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "conditional" when you apply that to "all of science" ? ...

... that seems to me a rather strange word to use, unless of course the aim is actually to mistakenly accuse science of all sorts of limits or shortcomings.

We (science) probably cannot give absolute literal proofs for the establised Theories ... that's all you need to know, and all we need to say ... you don't have to use more opaque words/adjectives like "conditional" which might easily contain all manner of unstated implications ...

... the major theories are true, or accurate, as far as we can tell. That does not exclude the possibility that relatively small refinements might be found in the future, espescially as our technology advances ... but it does imply that the the basis of those theories is very unlikely to be completely wrong.

What else do you think needs to be said about science (assuming we are trying to be accurate)?

But in this thread we have been comparing science to philosophy. So do you think that philosophy does not have limits such that it is “conditional”, i.e. such that it must be able to tell us where science is going wrong and where it (philosophy) corrects the science and gives us the absolutely correct answers?

We are always talking about all that we can ever detect through our human senses. Do you think that philosophy is answering questions about that in a way that shows science is less capable than philosophy, e.g. at answering all the most important questions for human life? Or do you think that science has actually answered all those questions to an extent way, way WAY beyond anything that philosophy & philosophers have ever done? That's really the heart of the matter in this thread.
 
LarryS said:
I’m not saying science can’t answer, only that claims/answers of science are conditional-which everyone agrees with.
Click to expand...

Which alters the answer how?
LarryS said:
I’m not saying philosophy can answer the question.
Click to expand...

So, it can't?
LarryS said:
I certainly can’t answer the question what it means to exist.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the question asked.
LarryS said:
But I do know that claims re knowledge and existence have various patterns and degrees of conditionality, although I’m pretty damn sure about my neighbor’s dog.
Click to expand...

What are you "pretty damn sure" about your neighbour's dog?
LarryS said:
And yes science is the best tool we have, but agreeing so is not the heroic identifier that people here seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

Don't understand your comment.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
I’ve already answered what a scientist means when they say particle x exists. When I say my neighbor’s dog exists, I mean I’ve seen it, touched it, and the thing licked my leg.Not sure what you’re getting at.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that you accept that the dog exists, but that you refuse to accept the discoveries and explanations of science in the same way, because you personally cannot see it with your own eyes, touch it yourself or lick it yourself?

Science tells you that atoms & molecules exist ... are you going to withhold your belief until you can personally touch, lick and see atoms & molecules? Science tell us that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old ... are you refusing to believe that until such a time when you can personally travel back in time to witness the earth by standing there looking at it, touching it etc. ...

... is that also the sort of lack of acceptance from you that leads you to use words like "conditional"?
 
Guys... guys.

"Conditional" is a codeword for "stuff that falls outside the realm of science" which is a codeword for "Woo."
 
It's the stupid "Science can tell you the facts, but only philosophy can tell you the twoof" horsecrap.

It's the same thing that gets my blood pressure up with the God discussions.

If you walk into a room and there's no chair you stop looking for a chair. If you walk into a room and there's no God we're expected to keep looking for one.

Philosophy is the same way. If someone throws a rock at my head and I duck, then the rock exists. The whole "Okay but does it reaaaaallllllyyyyyyyy exist?" routine the philosophy fanboys both can't help but play and can't help but act like makes them smarter than the rest of us fails to achieve any point or purpose.

It's the same stupid distinction without difference word games. "Oh sure the entire universe acts as if there's a chair in the room... but that's not the same thing as a chair actually being in the room."

Yes, it is. Yes is goddamn is. Any discussion otherwise is so many angels dancing on the head of a pin.

If you have the facts and are still searching for "da twoof" then it's because you are trying to find a way to deny the facts.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
I’m not saying science can’t answer, only that claims/answers of science are conditional-which everyone agrees with.
I’m not saying philosophy can answer the question.
I certainly can’t answer the question what it means to exist.
But I do know that claims re knowledge and existence have various patterns and degrees of conditionality, although I’m pretty damn sure about my neighbor’s dog.
And yes science is the best tool we have, but agreeing so is not the heroic identifier that people here seem to think it is.
Click to expand...


Larry ; I really don't know what that highlight is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that science has inherent limits or failings of some kind?

What do you think those limits or failings are?

What do you think is done better by philosophy (or by any other way of investigating anything/everything in the world around us)?

We have of course had exactly that discussion here several times before, i.e. where it's claimed that science has limits where it cannot possibly answer questions, and where such questions are claimed to be the domain of some other academic subject such as philosophy ... But in all those other threads it soon became very obvious that it was impossible to justify claims that science is somehow excluded from studying or explaining certain things (that was always just a complete loss for those trying to defend or promote philosophy).
 
Belz... said:
And it's wonderfully circular.
Click to expand...

Not only that, its a GOOJF word... philosobabblers drop "conditional" into sentences so that when their claim is challenged, they can say that the conditions were not met, or weren't the same That way, their claim survives until the next challenge.

Its Philosobabble 101...

Vroomfondel.jpg
 
I just watched Brian Cox program about gravity, and it seemed to me that Newton was doing philosophy not science, when he created his theories of Gravity.
As was Galileo when he conceived of the idea that feathers would fall at the same rate as a cannon ball in a vacuum .He had no vacuum chamber to test this in so it remained a philosophical theory.
In fact scientist are still doing philosophy about black holes, because they cannot know they are right without proof.
 
Last edited:
Except that they can test their theories on black holes and have done so.

Do you not understand that science doesn't have to be done in a lab with people in white coats? Astrophysics is a fascinating topic based around mathematical modelling of the universe, and they find that black holes correspond nicely to what the science says they should, and can even make testable predictions based upon it.
 
Scorpion said:
I just watched Brian Cox program about gravity, and it seemed to me that Newton was doing philosophy not science, when he created his theories of Gravity.
As was Galileo when he conceived of the idea that feathers would fall at the same rate in a vacuum .He had no vacuum chamber to test this in so it remained a philosophical theory.
In fact scientist are still doing philosophy about black holes, because they cannot know they are right without proof.
Click to expand...


Yes of course!

And you cannot say for certain that you cannot fly, unless you jump out a window to test it.

You have no idea Scorpion.
 
This has always been one of philosophy's big game, tag a passive-aggressive "well according to science" or "well under materialism" or "conditionally" on to their statements, leaving themselves an out whenever they say anything.

And more and more I'm comfortable calling these "outs" the whole point.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Ugh, you young people and your acronyms.
Click to expand...
Thanks, a 70 year old like me likes being called young. Not that it's my acronym.

I am an ex world silver medal finalist Monopoly game player though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom