Does anything exist?

[LarryS]

...In what way exactly? I mean obviously you have the standard privisos of all knowledge being only what is best known at the time with the possibility that our understanding will change with new information, but you can absolutely state that one explanation is correct. To pick a random example, the panoply of life is due to the systems detailed in the theory of Evolution. It just is, that's the absolute truth of the matter.

No, it's not the truth of the matter - in 5, 50, 500 years there could be 5 competing hypothesis re the panoply of life

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Absolute nonsense. You clearly don't understand how science works, do you?

 

[ynot]

What would Jesus say? "Therefore God" perhaps?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well the last defender of Philosophy has resorted to pure gibberish.

I guess I should prepare for the upcoming fringe reset where all the philosophy defenders show back up in another thread a few months from now starting at square one with the exact same arguments.

 

[Belz...]

I think philosophy is regarded as personal, and often includes personal values and qualities.

What a cameleon! Is there anything philosophy doesn't include?

You're basically saying that tigers do philosophy. After all they have values and qualities.

And, there are some questions science can, in principle, provide explanations, but hey I'm 67 and in the abscence of time I just might have to settle for some philosophy.

Exactly. You don't want to have to wait or to settle for uncertainties. So, mental masturbation it is!

 

[LarryS]

Absolute nonsense. You clearly don't understand how science works, do you?

Sorry it bums you out. Even though Theory of Evolution is as close to fact as one can get - it will always be vulnerable to better explanations - especially when/if we find life on other planets, better techniques, etc. This is how science works. Be glad, this is a good thing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, the theory will be adapted if new data comes it. It will not be replaced.

You really don't know how science works do you?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry it bums you out. Even though Theory of Evolution is as close to fact as one can get - it will always be vulnerable to better explanations - especially when/if we find life on other planets, better techniques, etc. This is how science works. Be glad, this is a good thing.

What does that have to do with anything?

It sounds very much like a god-of-the-gaps argument: science provides results -- the best results -- yes, but there's always some better explanation possible, and in that meantime we get to make **** up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Notice how we're no longer arguing philosophy but just general straight-up anti-intellectualism?

That's not a coincidence.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Science cannot exist without Philosophy. They are partners in the dance of inductive (posteriori) discovery.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted.

The four major branches of Philosophy are metaphysics, logic, ethics, and epistemology. That latter of which is defined as the philosophy of understanding and how to justify knowledge. We cannot conduct science without logic or epistemology.

The alternative position that Philosophy is not necessary to this process is scientism. Ism's are never a safe bet. This position also puts you at odds with what formal education offers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh another philosophy fanboy.

Surely this one will answer any of the basic questions asked and not just repeat the same half dozen truisms and then slink off into the shadows and/or tip their hand almost immediately that their issue is "Science sometimes tells me things I don't want to hear..."

 

[Belz...]

Notice how we're no longer arguing philosophy but just general straight-up anti-intellectualism?

That's not a coincidence.

Didn't I predict that days ago?

 

[Belz...]

Science cannot exist without Philosophy.

Sorry, you're too late. We've already had this discussion and your argument has been rejected. Read the thread and, if you can, answer the questions we've asked from your confederates. In particular, make sure to use the definitions of philosophy I've provided a few days back, as they remain unchallenged.

 

[JoeMorgue]

For a fanclub of people whose entire argument is "This long-dead white guy who lived before we invented indoor plumbed said this in Latin, so therefore it's an absolute truth" they have a problem with reading a few pages back in a thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Repeating myself from earlier today for the benefit of our new arrival:

We've now had like 4 or 5 philosophy defenders run into the thread, head held high, sure and confident in the ability to win the discourse with nothing but a trite "Philosophy answers questions that science can't!" who then fade back into the shadows when asked to either present something philosophy has answered that science could not or to describe how exactly philosophy could answer something.

So... like the next person just waiting in the wings to make that exact same argument how about you just... like don't.

 

[ynot]

For a fanclub of people whose entire argument is "This long-dead white guy who lived before we invented indoor plumbed said this in Latin, so therefore it's an absolute truth" they have a problem with reading a few pages back in a thread.

Bit like theists getting all their info from 2000+ years ago. "The wisdom of the ancients".

 

[abaddon]

I'd like to briefly stop the discussion and give a pre-"Jerk off Motion" to the following arguments/truisms/thought terminating cliches before they are made to save everyone the time.

- "Oh but nobody is 100% rational..."
- "With only science reality is cold and dark and without humor or joy!"
- "Science can't describe systems..."
- Any reference to "Holistic Thinking"

all seen in the wild. That is a little depressing. I used to get on rant mode for such. Not no more. Let's all see where that big pile of utter bollocks leads. All of us. Cranks are allergic to any form of checking anything.

 

[abaddon]

What?

Dude are you steering harder into the gibberish?

What observations? And I swear to God if you say "qualia" or anything like it I'll make your brain in a vat eat the Ship of Theseus inside Plato's Cave.

Calm down, it is one of the more amusing claims of the credules

 

[LarryS]

No, the theory will be adapted if new data comes it. It will not be replaced.

You really don't know how science works do you?

adapted? replaced? It appears you agree with me it's just a question of what is meant by competing hypothesis. Anyways, some people self-annoint themselves as Protector of All Things Science, and their brain stems start twitching even when science is not under attack - which is why this thread reads like it's patroled by priests.

 

[bruto]

A different commentator's take:

Wislawa Szymborska, "Discovery."