Did you mean to post this in the "History, Literature, and the Arts" section of the forum?
Or is this meant to be some representation of philosophy?
-
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
Or is this meant to be some representation of philosophy?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Appearances can be deceptive.
Larry - there is no point any sensible educated people talking to you. You are simply off the scale of all rationality.
You write about yourself as if you are an expert on science (writing things like "Sabine & I agree", as if you were a professional collaborator working with her), but it's very obvious that you actually know almost nothing about science and have no proper understanding for what you say at all.
Throughout all of these threads over many years you have not progressed at all from what are in fact your personal pile of mystical woo woo beliefs about science and reality.
You are doing the classic philosophy dodgy-dance (a deceitful dishonest dance) of hiding behind the use of words whilst also trying to have your cake & eat it at the same time ... you don't want to say science is "wrong", but you don't want to say that it's "right" either ... but we are not talking about absolute certainties as defined by words like "right" or "wrong" ... we are talking about (science is talking about) what we think is probably the correct/right explanation ...
... and we reach that conclusion on the basis of all known evidence, all possible means of testing and reproducibility, and with no credible explanations to the contrary (eg, Evolution ... ie all the evidence agrees with that, it passes all tests, inc new previously unknown tests such as the discovery of genes, and there is no known remotely credible explanation to the contrary).
What level of doubt do you think we should have about evolution?
Lets take a simpler example - science tells us that the Moon is a planet-like body orbiting in space 385,000km from the Earth, it tells us that it has a solid rocky surface etc. etc. What level of doubt do you put upon that? ... what level of doubt do you put upon it when you know that we have sent space missions to the Moon with men actually landing on and walking on the surface of the planet and gathering up all sorts material which has been brought back to Earth ...
... you are trying to claim that it might not be true, that we may never have sent any missions to the moon … you are trying to claim that we should maintain some level of realistic disbelief about whether science was correct in what it predicted about the nature of the Moon and what it predicted about being able to send manned craft there & what it predicted & calculated about our ability to actually have men land on the surface and even to exit the the craft to walk on the surface etc etc. …
... how could all of that science which went into the Moon landing missions (thousands of scientific “facts” were involved in making that happen), be wrong such that you claim to withhold belief about it actually happening? … if you try to claim that it might have all been some sort of illusion or whatever, then you are indeed, as I have pointed out here several times, actually in the business of claiming Hard Solipsism.
What else is common table salt but Chlorine and Sodium?
You mean "philosophers"?
Belz...
Fiend God
It's "delicious", and science can't explain QUALIA!!!!!!!!!!11
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Those are very much not synonyms. If you think they are you have no place in this discussion.
Categorically false. If you sincerely believe this, you can't read.
Only if you're willing to stretch definitions out of all usefulness. You are simply wrong.
Except that
1. I am one of the "pro philosophy" people, remember?
2. You aren't attacking science, you simply don't understand it well enough to hold a conversation on the subject.
I suspect LarryS is using the word "nature" in a non-standard manner but I want to make sure.
ETA: The standard definition would be "the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something."
So: the basic and inherent features, character, and qualities of common table salt is chlorine and sodium.
But he seems to be arguing that science can't tell us that?
Last edited:
I hope the person who's entire defense of philosphy was that "Science can explain the taste of a cup of coffee, but it can't explain the 'Ahhhh' of a cup of coffee" joins the thread soon. That one was always my favorite.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I meant, in a somewhat non-serious vein, to remind one that ethics might occasionally have some relevance.
Again what is ethics without evidence and falsifiability?
A scientific (or again logical and rational for the people just scared of the word "science") view of ethics isn't only possible, it's the only one that makes sense.
Absent stupid solipsistic crap like 'Okay well prove using your precious science that suffering is bad' ethics is just applied psychology and socialogy.
A scientific (or again logical and rational for the people just scared of the word "science") view of ethics isn't only possible, it's the only one that makes sense.
Absent stupid solipsistic crap like 'Okay well prove using your precious science that suffering is bad' ethics is just applied psychology and socialogy.
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,745
Starting off with a disparaging remark. That is a virtue of somebody who is anti-intellectual. That is telling since you are the one claiming others are anti-intellectual.
Rejected by whom? Two guys on the internet whose opinions are opposed to one of the most prestigious universities (Stanford) in the United States. What are you accolades?
Do you also deny the wisdom of an old white guy that died since indoor plumbing?
Einstein 1949 said:
I am unsure who this was directed at. As of yet, I haven't said that Philosophy can teach us something that science cannot.
The Common Potato
Muse
They'd get divorced and squabble over which one gets to keep the family heirloom - which used to be the invisible chair in Joe's kitchen.
Of course not, because you're philosophofizing. Which means you will take a long route to actually saying anything, including the things which directly contradict other things you didn't say.
The Common Potato
Muse
Why?
Belz...
Fiend God
The participants of the discussion. You know, how debates work.
Opposed? Where?
Again, did you read the thread? If not, how can you know any of this? And if you did, then you should be aware of the objections.
I used the expression 'competing hypothesis' you introduced the terms adapted / replaced into the discussion . . . Did Copernicus adapt or replace Ptolemic astronomy? . . . really, who cares . . . No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.
Why?