Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

And again we're back to straight up "We can't know anything for sure" anti-intellectualism.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And, for the billionth time, how does philosophy get us closer to these "real" explanations other then it just saying so over and over?

 

[catsmate]

I remain convinced that chocolate and cats exist.

 

[lomiller]

Exactly. When asked a question, you talked about the question and didn't give an answer yet acted like you gave an answer.

When someone asks you how tall you are going on about "Well you know some people would answer that in feet and some would answer it in meters" for twenty minutes and never getting around to telling us your height isn't an answer.

I most certainly DID give the answer, indeed I have given it more than once. It wasn't one that fits you misconceptions about philosophy so you ignored my response and continue to keep asking the question in the hopes of finding something you can use to justify your false beliefs.

****again****
Descartes proved his own existence with the statement "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist." if you want to you take this one step further and say "I exist therefor something exists"

Whatever you think philosophy is, is wrong. Philosophers do not legitimately entertain the question "does anything exist" any more than scientists legitimately entertain the question "is the earth flat"

 

[JoeMorgue]

I most certainly DID give the answer, indeed I have given it more than once. It wasn't one that fits you misconceptions about philosophy so you ignored my response and continue to keep asking the question in the hopes of finding something you can use to justify your false beliefs.

****again****
Descartes proved his own existence with the statement "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist." if you want to you take this one step further and say "I exist therefor something exists"

Whatever you think philosophy is, is wrong. Philosophers do not legitimately entertain the question "does anything exist" any more than scientists legitimately entertain the question "is the earth flat"

Oh some long dead guy said so. Didn't run a test, didn't do an experiment, just declared it so. Well why didn't you say so to begin with.

 

[Darat]

They are likely wrong. Don't confuse observation with the explanation for that observation. The observation won't change just because the explanation does. Theories are the explanation for the observations we have made, and when they no longer explain all the observations we look for new explanations that do. By it's nature science can't give us a final, "real" explanation.

Sorry but you really don't seem to realise what you are claiming.

One theory in chemistry i.e. science has it that if I burn solid sodium in chlorine gas a compound will be produced, that consists of only sodium and chlorine.

I can run an experiment to see if the theory is correct (i.e. https://youtu.be/ji_25I_q4LQ).

And we find the theory was correct.

What you are claiming is that the theory will be within 500 years wrong.

For it to be wrong something other than common table salt will have to be produced when I run the experiment.

Your and LarryS's claim that the theory will be found to be wrong within 500 years requires that the nature of common salt will have to be something different to what it is today.

 

[lomiller]

And, for the billionth time, how does philosophy get us closer to these "real" explanations other then it just saying so over and over?

Who said it does? Personally I think that first principle "real" explanations are impossible to find or at the very least impossible to prove.

Some people are not comfortable with this type of uncertainty and find solace in religion, which purports to offer just such certainty. Others chose to repeat the errors Religion makes and falsely insist that science does do the things religion purports to. This is malpractice and not really scientific and IMO the resulting "science" has many religious like aspects to it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who said it does? Personally I think that first principle "real" explanations are impossible to find or at the very least impossible to prove.

THEN WHAT DOES IT DO?

It doesn't give us answers (except when it does) and doesn't ask questions (except when it does) and it isn't everything (except when it is.)

 

[IanS]

They are likely wrong. Don't confuse observation with the explanation for that observation. The observation won't change just because the explanation does. Theories are the explanation for the observations we have made, and when they no longer explain all the observations we look for new explanations that do. By it's nature science can't give us a final, "real" explanation.

What do you mean when you say "they are likely wrong"? What do you think can ever be precisely "right"?

Can you actually "prove" that any explanation is "right", meaning 100% certain to be correct? You are implicitly asking for science to be "right" ... you are asking for literal proof of whatever things we can detect around us.

What can YOU prove to be 100% certain as fact?

What can you show to ever be possible as “the final, "real" explanation”? … because that is what your words are calling for.


And by the way - YOU must avoid "confusing observation with the explanation for that observation".

 

[lomiller]

Sorry but you really don't seem to realise what you are claiming.

One theory in chemistry i.e. science has it that if I burn solid sodium in chlorine gas a compound will be produced, that consists of only sodium and chlorine.

I can run an experiment to see if the theory is correct (i.e. https://youtu.be/ji_25I_q4LQ).

And we find the theory was correct.

No. We find that the prediction was correct.
We also have an observation which future theories must be able to explain.

 

[lomiller]

What do you mean when you say "they are likely wrong"? What do you think can ever be precisely "right"?

probabaly nothing.

Can you actually "prove" that any explanation is "right", meaning 100% certain to be correct?

Nope. You can only prove things from true predicates, but this means you need to prove the predicates are true as well. Eventually you run out of predicates that you can actually prove, though in some cases you could choose to accept them as axioms even if you can't prove them.

You are implicitly asking for science to be "right"

You are the one throwing a hissy fit at the idea science may not be "right". I'm saying that we don't use science because it right we use it because it provides useful results and that is much more important than being right.

What can you show to ever be possible as “the final, "real" explanation”? … because that is what your words are calling for.

No, this is what your sense of how knowledge works is calling for. I'm saying just the opposite, that final, real explanations are not possible to begin with and that we don't need them anyway. Useful models are much better than "real answers"

What can YOU prove to be 100% certain as fact?

Again, Descartes...

His Method of Doubt (from which modern skepticism descends) says to doubt everything that can be doubted. It turns out that the only thing he couldn't doubt was his own existence.

After that he had to appeal to a benevolent god as a reason to trust the information provided by his own senses, which violated the "doubt everything" principle.

 

[IanS]

No. We find that the prediction was correct. We also have an observation which future theories must be able to explain.

Can you prove it was "correct"? You said that it "was correct", but if you state absolute fact for that then you must show a literal proof ... otherwise what you really mean is that it "appears to be correct as far as all of our evidence shows".

Could it be wrong that the products are pure NaCl? Well, actually, we don't know if it "could" be wrong ... perhaps it could be. Perhaps anything might be true. Perhaps, maybe, possibly ....

We (anyone) can only use our best efforts to determine what seems to be correct. And there are many ways we have to test and check that. But at the end of line, science does not claim to give a 100% proof of certainty.

And that also follows from QM. Where it seems to follow that it's not possible ever to have 100% certainty, i.e. proof, in a universe where all the fundamental subatomic forces seem to be determined by quantum probability factors.

In which case, when you keep asking for science to provide proof and certainty, you would be insisting on the impossible.

Which of these millions of discoveries and explanations was discovered by philosophy? I think the answer is actually "none". In which case what do you think exists, or even could exist, as a superior method to science? What else other than science do you think can give us more accurate knowledge about the world around us?

 

[IanS]

probabaly nothing.



Nope. You can only prove things from true predicates, but this means you need to prove the predicates are true as well. Eventually you run out of predicates that you can actually prove, though in some cases you could choose to accept them as axioms even if you can't prove them.



You are the one throwing a hissy fit at the idea science may not be "right". I'm saying that we don't use science because it right we use it because it provides useful results and that is much more important than being right.


No, this is what your sense of how knowledge works is calling for. I'm saying just the opposite, that final, real explanations are not possible to begin with and that we don't need them anyway. Useful models are much better than "real answers"



Again, Descartes...

His Method of Doubt (from which modern skepticism descends) says to doubt everything that can be doubted. It turns out that the only thing he couldn't doubt was his own existence.

After that he had to appeal to a benevolent god as a reason to trust the information provided by his own senses, which violated the "doubt everything" principle.

We are ging around in useless circles (as always when philosophy gets involved). But I said much earlier in this thread that science does not claim to actually prove things ... and I've said that, in fact empahsised that, repeatedly both here and in every other thread on this subject ... did you keep failing to notice that? ... and are you disagreeing with that?

And by the way Descartes was a very long time ago, and his statement in mere words is not actually a "proof" that he himself (or anything else) exists ... and we have been through Descartes Cogito numeorus times here over thousands of posts ... and his statement/reasoning is circular and faulty.

And by the way - do try to avoid throwing hissy fits.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's classic philoso-babble, the distinction without difference.

Truth, facts, "correctness," wisdom, etc, etc, etc are all spoken of as if what the difference between them is both agreed upon and obvious.

 

[LarryS]

Can you prove it was "correct"? You said that it "was correct", but if you state absolute fact for that then you must show a literal proof ... otherwise what you really mean is that it "appears to be correct as far as all of our evidence shows".

Could it be wrong that the products are pure NaCl? Well, actually, we don't know if it "could" be wrong ... perhaps it could be. Perhaps anything might be true. Perhaps, maybe, possibly ....

We (anyone) can only use our best efforts to determine what seems to be correct. And there are many ways we have to test and check that. But at the end of line, science does not claim to give a 100% proof of certainty.

And that also follows from QM. Where it seems to follow that it's not possible ever to have 100% certainty, i.e. proof, in a universe where all the fundamental subatomic forces seem to be determined by quantum probability factors.

In which case, when you keep asking for science to provide proof and certainty, you would be insisting on the impossible.

Which of these millions of discoveries and explanations was discovered by philosophy? I think the answer is actually "none". In which case what do you think exists, or even could exist, as a superior method to science? What else other than science do you think can give us more accurate knowledge about the world around us?

Can we agree to this: Even though any current scientific theories, hypothesis or claims may not 'have standing' in 500 years, that is, no scientific theory, hypothesis or claim can be said to be literally true till the end of time true; yet, our current set of scientific theories, hypothesis and claims should be treated as true.
For example, the question, 'Is there a scientifivally demonstrated procedure to greatly reduce the probabilities of dying from colon cancer?'
The answer is YES - and, ignore that advice at your peril.
Common table salt can be described as NaCl . . . will there be a far better and useful description of the nature of common table salt in the future? Yah probably - this is a good thing !!!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can we agree to this: Even though any current scientific theories, hypothesis or claims may not 'have standing' in 500 years, that is, no scientific theory, hypothesis or claim can be said to be literally true till the end of time true; yet, our current set of scientific theories, hypothesis and claims should be treated as true.
For example, the question, 'Is there a scientifivally demonstrated procedure to greatly reduce the probabilities of dying from colon cancer?'
The answer is YES - and, ignore that advice at your peril.
Common table salt can be described as NaCl . . . will there be a far better and useful description of the nature of common table salt in the future? Yah probably - this is a good thing !!!

"But how can we be certain!" is meaningless gibberish.

 

[Belz...]

No. We find that the prediction was correct.

...which are part of the theory. There's no need to knee-jerk your responses.

Speaking of responses, do you think you could muster some to my own questions? It seems like those questions are causing you issues. Let me remind you of the first one:

I'm asking you whether true and false being mutually exclusive is a philosophical position.

 

[LarryS]

You seem to be fond of doing this - you reply saying that you agree, but then you write something in complete disagreement. You are not agreeing with me at all ... and I am certainly not agreeing with you!

I just told you the standards that exist to check what scientists publish as research papers (and those papers are the whole of what science is aimed at), and you replied saying "you are right! .... no such standards exist!" ... you are writing self-contradictory rubbish in virtually every post.

I suggested we agreed out of 'kindness' - we're not referencing standards of publication, but standards to determine when a scientific hypothesis or claim is 'lights out', done, off the table, totally settled, fertig, . . .

 

[Belz...]

Descartes proved his own existence with the statement "I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I exist."

Wait wait wait wait. You think saying something proves it? And yet when science demonstrates something it's only tentative?

Are you taking the piss?

 

[LarryS]

"But how can we be certain!" is meaningless gibberish.

I think you're on to something, do continue.