Does anything exist?

[Darat]

. . . the Periodic Table becoming a 'relic' . . . I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's possible. Science has under-gone paradigm shifts in the past - developed totally new ways of looking at things. I have no reason to think any POV is sacred or will persist. Should that happen, that doesn't make the Periodic Table wrong, just not the manner/way things are viewed or classified or understood.

Again this shows your lack of knowledge about science. The periodic table has nothing to do with the nature of common table salt so it doesn't matter if yet another tabulated layout of elements is used in 500 years time it won't change the nature of table salt. (You are aware there isn't a "the" periodic table?) .

 

[LarryS]

Again this shows your lack of knowledge about science. The periodic table has nothing to do with the nature of common table salt so it doesn't matter if yet another tabulated layout of elements is used in 500 years time it won't change the nature of table salt. (You are aware there isn't a "the" periodic table?) .

Yes, the nature of table salt is not going to change, what is subject to change is understanding/perception of table salt as NaCl, NaCl is not the nature of table salt, it is a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt.

 

[Thermal]

Again there is nothing, no meaning AT ALL, hidden somewhere in the difference between "I have five fingers" and "I have four fingers and thumb."

Philosophers love putting the language cart in front of the reality horse.

That's actually a good example, though of course not how you intended.

Losing a ring finger is bad. Losing the thumb, the opposable digit that renders us effective tool using animals is exponentially more consequential. So a philosopher *thinks* about the thumb differently, and rightly so.

Again, saying philosophy is working out the right way of thinking about things is a pretty good one-liner definition. Its not meant to provide empirical results. Its meant to keep you thinking clearly.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the nature of table salt is not going to change, what is subject to change is understanding/perception of table salt as NaCl

Are you saying that it's possible that salt is NOT composed of those two components?

NaCl is not the nature of table salt, it is a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt.

Another distinction without a difference. Another "qualia"-like "special" nature to things that don't need it.

How do you define "the nature of X" here?

 

[Belz...]

Losing a ring finger is bad. Losing the thumb, the opposable digit that renders us effective tool using animals is exponentially more consequential. So a philosopher *thinks* about the thumb differently, and rightly so.

Except that Joe specifically mentioned "five fingers", which includes the thumb. You're proving HIS point.

Again, saying philosophy is working out the right way of thinking about things is a pretty good one-liner definition. Its not meant to provide empirical results. Its meant to keep you thinking clearly.

Thermal, we've established that there is no standard in philosophy, and no intended results. How can it be "meant", as a whole, to keep you thinking clearly, or to establish anything?

See, the problem is that if you'd use my narrower definitions you might be able to work that out. But the constant attempts to make philosophy as broad as possible actually work against your argument here.

 

[IanS]

. . . the Periodic Table becoming a 'relic' . . . I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's possible. Science has under-gone paradigm shifts in the past - developed totally new ways of looking at things. I have no reason to think any POV is sacred or will persist. Should that happen, that doesn't make the Periodic Table wrong, just not the manner/way things are viewed or classified or understood.

I am asking you how you know that it's possible! ... how do you know that? ... you stated it as if the possibility is a certain fact ... I'm asking how & where you "proved" that!

Look - just because over time science finds improvements and extra refinements, or even if it finds mistakes in earlier explanations, that does not mean we should always distrust current established theories in science.

The time to start distrusting all the major results of science (we are excluding tentative suggestions and temporary models etc., ... all of which may in fact be great, but where nobody is ever claiming that they completely free from all possible errors), is when their application starts throwing up obvious errors such as clashing with observed "reality" or disgareeing with any of the major theories such as Evolution, Realtivity, QM (QFT) ... there's nothing to stop you actually claiming to have found something that disagrees with any major theory, but in that case you also have to publish a paper showing how that major established theory is wrong ... and so far nobody in the era of modern science has even come close to doing that).

But what you are doing in this thread (and what you did even more overtly in your previous posts in all the earlier threads), is claiming that the theories do not, or even cannot, describe reality, and that they are are merely useful models as ways for us to visualise things (but where our visualisation is actually entirely wrong, because according to you the science does not show us reality). But if you want to make a claim like that, then you need to publish a paper in the real science research journals showing that science is not measuring or describing reality ....

... have you done that? ... where is your paper showing that science is not showing us reality?

If you cannot publish any sort of paper doing that, then you have absolutely no case at all. If philosophers cannot publish any such paper in the science research journals claiming to show that, then there is simply no credible case being made to suggest that science is not describing reality in what it shows us about the universe.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, the nature of table salt is not going to change, what is subject to change is understanding/perception of table salt as NaCl, NaCl is not the nature of table salt, it is a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt.

Meaningless gibberish. The structure of the thing is the nature of the thing. The nature of table salt is that it is a chemical compound made up of one Sodium cation and one Chlorine anion.

 

[IanS]

Yes, the nature of table salt is not going to change, what is subject to change is understanding/perception of table salt as NaCl, NaCl is not the nature of table salt, it is a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt.

OK, well the above just shows exactly what I was talking about above when I said that what you are actually doing in all these threads is claiming that science is not describing reality. So, you just proved that what I was accusing you of, is most definitely the case ... it's exactly what you are doing!

Well ... scientists are indeed claiming that " NaCl is not IS the nature of table salt"... they are not claiming that it is merely "a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt" ...

... science does think (rightly or wrongly) that "table salt" is a compound composed of one part Na bonded to one part Cl ... and we write that on paper as NaCl. That IS what we say salt is.

 

[Pixel42]

Again, saying philosophy is working out the right way of thinking about things is a pretty good one-liner definition. Its not meant to provide empirical results. Its meant to keep you thinking clearly.

Richard Feynman once described philosophers as people who kick up the dirt, and then complain because they can't see. So if you're right about what it's meant to do, he evidently didn't think it was doing a very good job of it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Richard Feynman once described philosophers as people who kick up the dirt, and then complain because they can't see. So if you're right about what it's meant to do, he evidently didn't think it was doing a very good job of it.

And that really is the gist of it.

Philosophers: "This question is a lot harder to answer if you intentionally word it in the most convoluted, least clear, least consistent, and overall just stupidest way."
Sane People: "Then... don't phrase the question that way!"

Every question that philosophy hides behind as a reason for its existence becomes either obviously not a good question or piss easy to question if you JUST PHRASE IT WITHOUT INTENTIONALLY MAKING IT NOT MAKE SENSE!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Except that Joe specifically mentioned "five fingers", which includes the thumb. You're proving HIS point.

Proving it better than I ever could, just like with the Dragon in the Garage that I couldn't have literally written a strawman opponent to react to in a way that proves I'm right better. I've never seen anyone consistently put this much effort doing something that proves they are doing exactly what people claim they are doing.

 

[Darat]

Yes, the nature of table salt is not going to change, what is subject to change is understanding/perception of table salt as NaCl, NaCl is not the nature of table salt, it is a description of a specific way of perceiving and understanding table salt.

Around the mulberry bush we go…

The nature i.e “ the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities” of table salt is chlorine and sodium.

If you want to use a non-standard definition of “nature” can you please provide that.

 

[Steve]

Around the mulberry bush we go…

The nature i.e “ the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities” of table salt is chlorine and sodium.

If you want to use a non-standard definition of “nature” can you please provide that.

In philosophy word definitions can be whatever you want them to be. That is a crucial aspect of the ‘nature’ of philosophy.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Just to add to Belz reply - religions preach the supernatural ... science is not doing that, and people here who are promoting science are not preaching either the supernatural or preaching anything else.

Are you claiming that the ONLY way that the Cult of Science and religion can be determined to be similar is if they both preach supernatural? Preaching the supernatural is not the only defining aspect of religion.

What some of us doing (certainly what I'm doing) is giving credit where it's due.

My perception is that you are giving credit wholly to Science and invalidating any thing else that contributes and continues to contribute to Sciences success. Giving Science ALL of the credit is similar to religions folks giving ALL of everything to god. Religious folk are fond of preaching, his will be done, or God has got this. Giving ALL of the credit to god or Science is one of the similarities that I found between those in the Cult of Science and religion.

If you think that too much credit is being given to the achievements of science, then frankly your opinions & beliefs about that are seriously unreliable and irrational. Because the success of science has become so enormous that it's almost impossible now to comprehend just how much has been achieved to advance the quality of life for literally everyone on the planet ...

I am intending to communicate that the complete invalidation of factors that contribute to Sciences success is an indefensible position based on a negation of the historical development of our knowledge base. I recognize and am appreciative of the knowledge that Science has allowed us to discover.

... that has to be contrasted to what we had before the advent of modern science. And that was philosophy and religious belief as the two claimed ways of correctly understating everything in the world around us. But compared to what has happened with science, philosophy has achieved almost nothing of actual practical value, and religion has been even worse (worse than useless, because it has seriously mislead everyone, and often in a very dangerous and harmful way ... it's held the world back, and still continues to do that).

The discovery of the scientific process is a result of philosophy. Since the discovery of the scientific process, I agree that humans have been able to expand our understanding of the world around us at a much faster and at a higher confidence than when philosophy alone was our tool.

There is simply no comparison to be had between the value of science to all of mankind (in everything we do) vs the almost complete lack of any practical value from the subject of "philosophy" (and I put it like that, or describe it as "academic" philosophy, to emphasis that when we talk about "philosophy" we do mean all the stuff written and taught by ancient and modern day philosophy teachers/professors ... we do not mean mere "philosophising" in the sense of animal constructive thought).

If I may attempt an anology, which I generally shy away from. Whose contribution to the posterity of mankind is most important, who should get ALL of the credit? Males or females? The answer is simple, we need both sexes. We also need Science and philosophy.

The above is also the answer to your questions of (quote) "You are sensitive to criticisms of science. I'm curious where that reactivity originates" ... my support of science arises from simply being honest in recognising what a monumental contribution has been made by science ... it's become beyond all conceivable scales of what anyone could possibly have even imagined let alone hoped for ... and as I say, in contrast the other two historically claimed "ways of knowing", have in the process been shown to have been almost completely useless, if not actually worse than useless and in fact a whopping great negative drain on society.

Is that clear enough? Detailed enough?

My perception is that you defend Science so dearly because you said earlier that you have a PhD...which is to ask...Am I safe to assume that you have dedicated your career to Science? I would also defend anything that could be perceived to threaten my life's dedication. The coexistence of philosophy and Science are possible and preferred.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Labeling of the parts and categorization changes doesn't mean anything has actually changed.

Again science will often refine terms to make things more clear. This isn't the same thing as functional actual real stuff changing.

I know doing things "to make things more clear" is a new and terrifying concept for philsopshizers, but please try to make peace with it.

Philosophers refine or create terminology all the time, therefore they are not only at peace with it, they get credit for creating this tactic. Philosophy has been around for thousands of years longer than Science.

Agreed, scientists can refine terms to make things clearer. They can also refine terms so that they get the results they want.

 

[Steve]

Philosophers refine or create terminology all the time, therefore they are not only at peace with it, they get credit for creating this tactic. Philosophy has been around for thousands of years longer than Science.

Agreed, scientists can refine terms to make things clearer. They can also refine terms so that they get the results they want.

Scientists can but honest and reputable scientists do not.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Okay ServiceSoon what's your Woo?

Out with it, don't dance around the bush. What thing has science told you are wrong about?

What is it? God, souls, psychics, bigfoot?

Out with it, don't waste our time.

Don't make us do the same dance with have to do with all you "LOL science is just another religion" types were you jabber nonsense for 20 pages and casually drop it later that you just have a chip on your shoulder because science dared tell you that the grey aliens don't control horse racing industry or whatever.

You are too funny! I see you brah! If I share any belief based on anything not supported by Science you will call me a woo-peddler and use that to attack my position on other unrelated topics.

Perhaps, if I have time later, I will come up with something so preposterous that it will cause you to enter into a state of tizzy.

 

[abaddon]

Maybe table salt is composed of the tears of angels, man. Take some time to consider that idea. It could be really important.

Once again. we land right back at the proposition that philosophy is useless. Evidence? We have a philosopher proposing that serious thought should be given to the idea that common table salt could be composed of something else entirely. Thoughts and prayers, perhaps. We all know how effective those are.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Scientists can but honest and reputable scientists do not.

I know that those in the science community are working diligently to identify different types of bias or shortcomings in the scientific process so they can mitigate them as best as they can. It isn't always a matter of honesty or reputation. Even the smartest and most well-meaning scientist are fallible.

John & Julie Gottman used a popular scientific finding in their relationship materials. Neither of them understood differential equations well enough to have been able to identify that inconsistency. And even if they did posses that mathematical knowledge, that finding had become convention in that industry, so it would have been unlikely they would have taken the time necessary to fully understanding that finding. I think no less of either of them. More information about the specifics of this calamity can be found on, I think get pocket. The topic was a magical ratio of positive to negative interactions between couples that correlated with a happy marriage.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Maybe table salt is composed of the tears of angels, man. Take some time to consider that idea. It could be really important.

Once again. we land right back at the proposition that philosophy is useless. Evidence? We have a philosopher proposing that serious thought should be given to the idea that common table salt could be composed of something else entirely. Thoughts and prayers, perhaps. We all know how effective those are.

The only person I am praying for is you