Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

All wrong. Anyone can use philosophy, just like any one can use science.

With the small difference that doing science requires SOME sort of knowledge and methodology.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also it's possible to do science wrong, unlike philosophy, which means science isn't totally meaningless as a concept.

But not since Jabba have I had to make the same point so many times.

 

[ServiceSoon]

If you're talking about knowledge, which other method provides results?

Do you deny the existence of a priori knowledge? The knowledge-base of mathematics is derived from such methods. I am a mathematics-phile, and yet I know that the process used to derive math, like Science, is an imperfect system. I also know that Science and math become more accurate when used concurrently with other systems, or together. Please stop denying the roots that so meaningfully support Science that makes it even more powerful that it would by itself.

Do you deny the existence of lived experience? There are millions of successful business people whose decisions are not informed by Science. Their success fits the definition of wisdom.

Trigger alert: There are even instances in the Bible where knowledge known as fact has finally been better explained and understood now that Science has been utilized to study those topics. The knowledge was no less valuable as when we did not have as good of an understanding of why it worked the way it did.

There are indigenous tribes that have survived for thousands of years who do not possess Science. Certainly, the information that allows them to propagate can be classified as knowledge. I doubt you possess the knowledge necessary to survive for a year in their environment, let alone support posterity.

Science is an amazingly wonderful awesome system of discover. It also has limitations.

An oft-leveled accusation, but with no actual examples. No one worships anything in science.

You, are as an individual in this forum are engendering the example of somebody who testifies and believes that science operates in a vacuum, independent of any other type of system, and is the only system necessary to advance our understanding of the world and ourselves. You are not alone, there are others in this very thread that profess as such. You may not have become aware of it yet, but you are in the Cult of Science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trigger alert: There are even instances in the Bible where knowledge known as fact has finally been better explained and understood now that Science has been utilized to study those topics. The knowledge was no less valuable as when we did not have as good of an understanding of why it worked the way it did

Well one part of the plot just thinned.

 

[Belz...]

Do you deny the existence of a priori knowledge?

What a strange question.

The knowledge-base of mathematics is derived from such methods.

Back up: what "such" methods?

Please stop denying the roots that so meaningfully support Science that makes it even more powerful that it would by itself.

Do you think science was developed philosophically, from a group of mustache-twirlers in a smoked-up room? Or did perhaps it develop from experience without any deep thinking about universal implications?

Do you deny the existence of lived experience?

What a strange question. Why do you keep asking these questions that have nothing to do with anything I've said?

There are millions of successful business people whose decisions are not informed by Science.

And this has nothing to do with our discussion.

Trigger alert: There are even instances in the Bible where knowledge known as fact has finally been better explained and understood now that Science has been utilized to study those topics.

I'm dying to see examples.

There are indigenous tribes that have survived for thousands of years who do not possess Science.

It's the same point you're making over and over in your post but I don't see where you're going with this that has anything to do with the quote you provided from me.

Science is an amazingly wonderful awesome system of discover. It also has limitations.

Such as?

You, are as an individual in this forum are engendering the example of somebody who testifies and believes that science operates in a vacuum, independent of any other type of system, and is the only system necessary to advance our understanding of the world and ourselves.

I think you have me confused with someone else. Nothing in your post has anything to do with the post you were replying to. I think you got mixed up with your own definition of "human knowledge".

 

[lomiller]

Should "our current set of scientific theories, hypothesis and claims be treated as true" ... answer is - not really, not unless you wish to do that (nobody is stopping you) ... but the actual answer is that we, & science, do not need to debate whether such theories should be treated as "true" (that means proven certainty) ... all we need to do is to show that the explanations from science appear to be accurate to a very high degree, and that is enough to proceed with that as our best & most useful way to make progress and achieve things for the benefit of all mankind. That's a very big task and a huge ambition, but so far science has successfully achieved all of that & a great deal more.

This is at odds with your vehement objections to anyone who says things like "science provides useful models not truth". It's also at odds with you extreme response to the video below by quantum physicist Sabine Hossenfelder about how we interpret the world around us.

that is not by any means a credible argument for why scientists need to take any notice at all of what philosophy has to say about anything.

If you want to understand science you need to understand things like what can be used as evidence, how string that evidence is, what science is doing that makes it effective, whether something is actually science in the first place, whether an argument I logically sound, when there is enough evidence to just move on an ignore the deniers, etc

These all flow out of philosophy. many scientists spick up enough to get by, but if you look at the history of how prominent scientists fail dramatically when they try to work outside their own fields and it becomes obvious many lack these essential skills. They get by in their own fields but when called on to evaluate science outside that filed they can't do it properly.

 

[lomiller]

Someone fooling around with metaphysics can question reality. That doesn't negate the perfectly practical BULK of what philosophy is.

It's also worth noting that scientists can inadvertently stray into metaphysics. Eg there are those that feel multiverse models are untestable. This would make these models metaphysics rather than physics and prone to all the same flaws. "Is this really science" is a question a lot of people, scientists included, get wrong. Studying enough metaphysics to know when the line has been crossed could be useful IMO .

 

[JoeMorgue]

Anyone can do anything if the terms aren't clearly defined and/or dishonestly used.

Again defining some to the point of absurd vagueness so it functionally means nothing and constantly screeching "BUT LOOKIT THAT! THAT'S A TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY! THEY ARE DOING A TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY!" as if the proves or means anything got old only about 5 seconds before the constant lying that "Nobody is doing that."

 

[Darat]

let's meet up in 500 years and see where we're at - I'll buy the first round

You really think the nature of table salt will be no longer be sodium and chlorine?

 

[lomiller]

You really think the nature of table salt will be no longer be sodium and chlorine?

Maybe it will be called "food saltyizer" and have Sulfate, Calcium and Magnesium in it as well.

I fully expect the theories underpinning electromagnetism to change by then and this may even have consequences for how we understand electrons. This shouldn't change our understanding of covalent bonding because this is observed behavior that any new or modified theory needs to account for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What part of "our understanding will change" is part of philosophy and not science?

People just hate the word "science" and then they turn around and do it and defend it because, newsflash, it's the only methodology of gaining information that actually works.

 

[Steve]

The proof still works even if it's something created in some other way. If even works if I don't exist and am just a figment of your imagination so there is no need to prove Descartes existence to acknowledge the proof.

Something that does not exist cannot prove its existence. Decartes did/does not exist and had no thought for you to quote. You do not exist so you could not quote the non-existent Descartes. I do not exist so l cannot imagine your existence. Proofs do not exist.

 

[lomiller]

I do not exist so l cannot imagine your existence.

Then who or what is contemplating existence?



I obviously see what you are tying to do, but your attempts at philosophy are as feeble as flat earthers attempts at science. All you are really showing is that if you don't understand what something is or how it works you won't be able to do it correctly.

 

[Belz...]

It's also worth noting that scientists can inadvertently stray into metaphysics. Eg there are those that feel multiverse models are untestable. This would make these models metaphysics rather than physics and prone to all the same flaws. "Is this really science" is a question a lot of people, scientists included, get wrong. Studying enough metaphysics to know when the line has been crossed could be useful IMO .

It's amazing how wrong you think science is and how right philosophy is.

No, multiverse models, if they are testable, are science. If they are not and have use, then there's not science. There's middle ground where they are science and metaphysics and the keys get handed over to Descartes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then who or what is contemplating existence?

Philosophers, the same people making up answers that don't make any sense for a question only they are asking and acting like this is worth anyone's time.

 

[Steve]

Then who or what is contemplating existence?

“You” don’t know? Previously “you” suggested it was Descartes. But the proof of Descartes existence is noticeably lacking.

I obviously see what you are tying to do, but your attempts at philosophy are as feeble as flat earthers attempts at science. All you are really showing is that if you don't understand what something is or how it works you won't be able to do it correctly.

Philosophy? “Me”? If “you” existed the imaginary me that the imaginary you imagines exists might suggest you are joking.

 

[Thermal]

With the small difference that doing science requires SOME sort of knowledge and methodology.

Right. If you approach something scientifically, there are a rigorous set of standards. Dynamite. Philosophy does, too. My philosophy of self defense incorporates my values, knowledge of defensive techniques, method of reaching my desired outcome, and more. Are you suggesting such a philosophy is not valid? Or sound, since we're going all philosophical up in here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again there is a comparison to be made with the God nonsense.

"Well you see there has to be a God. Because something had to have created the universe. Something can't create itself."
"So who created God?"
"Oh God doesn't need a creator because I said so because God's special."

Same thing here, just with with "Where is the argumentative bedrock?" instead of "The universe."

You arbitrarily just pick where you want the "An then? And then? And then?" to stop and declare that level special and capable of self-creating.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Right. If you approach something scientifically, there are a rigorous set of standards. Dynamite. Philosophy does, too

And those standards will be shared with us... when exactly?

 

[LarryS]

You really think the nature of table salt will be no longer be sodium and chlorine?

I don't know if the Periodic Table will be the go-to organizing tool for matter in 500 years, it could an antique/artifact buried in some museum of science someplace.