Does anything exist?

[llwyd]

You're wrong. It does encompass that experience.

All I can say is that not hugely well so far.

Nietzsche, and I don't much even like him, and Schopenhauer et al, even Heidegger do a much better job, and obviously the heavenly Kant, and Hume - and literature and art even a better one than any of these. Nature's world is flat, factual, devoid of meaning.

 

[Belz...]

All I can say is that not hugely well so far.

Not hugely well? The only major questions not yet answered are the causes of the Big Bang and the exact functioning of consciousness. And even then we have a very good picture.

What do you think science doesn't explain at this point?

Nietzsche, and I don't much even like him, and Schopenhauer et al, even Heidegger do a much better job, and obviously the heavenly Kant, and Hume - and literature and art even a better one than any of these.

Well, they're philosophers, unburdened by reality and facts. Of course they can say amazing things.

Nature's world is flat, factual, devoid of meaning.

Aw, isn't that unfortunate for you? But we're not discussing whether science gives you satisfactory answers. We're discussing whether it gives ACCURATE ones.

 

[llwyd]

We're discussing whether it gives ACCURATE ones.

No, we are not discussing that. I absolutely agree that natural science gives us facts that are as near to be objectively true as our species is capable of (leaving only room for irrational doubt). I'm just saying, fundamentally, that science does not give meanings, it doesn't much address the human condition.

 

[Belz...]

No, we are not discussing that.

Oh, no? The question I was initially answering was "how can natural science study non-material things?" from post 1117. How is that not a matter of fact?

I absolutely agree that natural science gives us facts that are as near to be objectively true as our species is capable of (leaving only room for irrational doubt).

"I agree, but..." is way too common a phrase for these discussions.

I'm just saying, fundamentally, that science does not give meanings

Of course not. It's not its purpose.

it doesn't much address the human condition.

Except in the sense that it can explain it.

 

[llwyd]

Oh, no? The question I was initially answering was "how can natural science study non-material things?" from post 1117. How is that not a matter of fact?

So, how can natural science study the concept of absolute monarchy in the 17th century Europe? I'm genuinely interested, maybe you can give helpful pointers?

 

[Belz...]

So, how can natural science study the concept of absolute monarchy in the 17th century Europe? I'm genuinely interested, maybe you can give helpful pointers?

Chances are, the books you read on the topic were in large part written by a careful study of the period, the application of the concept and its consequences. A scientific approach, if you will. Or do you think the author is just whinging it?

 

[Belz...]

In my experience, the people who complain the most about science are the ones who understand it the least.

Conversely, philosophy's greatest defenders also suck at it.

 

[abaddon]

What does that even mean?

It means whatever a given philosopher wants it to mean.

It is humpty dumpty all the way down.

Long ago, in my youth, I used to wonder what it might be that these apparently meaningful and wise philosophy hounds might mean.

Not any more. Not for decades.

 

[Belz...]

It means whatever a given philosopher wants it to mean.

No, it turns out that reality isn't cool enough, and we have to believe that there's something "more" to what science can reveal. Same old **** that some have subjected rational people to for ages.

 

[llwyd]

Chances are, the books you read on the topic were in large part written by a careful study of the period, the application of the concept and its consequences. A scientific approach, if you will. Or do you think the author is just whinging it?

I guess I'm a fair bit better versed in this area than you - and yeah, you are right: natural science is not much of help here. Sadly. It deals with material, measurable things and the unfortunate part of the 17th century is that it simply is not here to be studied and experimented with. So, we need other kinds of methods.

 

[Belz...]

I guess I'm a fair bit better versed in this area than you - and yeah, you are right: natural science is not much of help here.

I said the exact opposite of this. How did you interpret it this way?

It deals with material, measurable things and the unfortunate part of the 17th century is that it simply is not here to be studied and experimented with. So, we need other kinds of methods.

Like what? Psychic readings? How do you think these authors reach conclusions and create narratives about the period? You haven't answered that question.

 

[llwyd]

Like what? Psychic readings?

The traditional analytical tools of the study of history? In lieau of the methods of natural science which are based on empirisism, logic and experimentation. How would you put to test an hypothesis by a historian? Again, I'm totally all ears, you might have useful, even unprecedented, hints of how we could make historiology into an exact science.

 

[abaddon]

The traditional analytical tools of the study of history? In lieau of the methods of natural science which are based on empirisism, logic and experimentation. How would you put to test an hypothesis by a historian? Again, I'm totally all ears, you might have useful, even unprecedented, hints of how we could make historiology into an exact science.

LOL. That is how the religious attempt to justify their bonkers wingnuttery. Are you certain that is the route you prefer? Feel free to back out. Any time you like.

 

[Belz...]

The traditional analytical tools of the study of history?

And how are those not scientific?

Again: you are arbitrarily creating a type of thing that science can't explain because you want there to be things that make reality "wondrous". That's not rational.

In lieau of the methods of natural science which are based on empirisism, logic and experimentation.

And yet history uses study of texts, correlation, knowledge of known history, first-hand accounts, artifacts and other empirical things to reach its conclusions. It's not reading in bird entrails, is it?

How would you put to test an hypothesis by a historian? Again, I'm totally all ears, you might have useful, even unprecedented, hints of how we could make historiology into an exact science.

Who the **** said anything about an "exact" science? Again this entire problem is manufactured by you in order to create a special category of things that empirical story can't touch.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah everytime I get read the "Oh you're just a philosophobe!" routine I remember that literally every philosophy discussion on this board, literally every one, degrades into this kind of pure nuttery, and then I don't feel so bad.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No, it turns out that reality isn't cool enough, and we have to believe that there's something "more" to what science can reveal. Same old **** that some have subjected rational people to for ages.

But we don't know what 'reality' is, we only know what science has revealed so far.

100 years ago we thought we had a handle on 'reality'. But a few niggling wrinkles remained, and when we tried to smooth them out we discovered a whole new 'reality' that we hadn't imagined before. But there are still a few wrinkles. In a few thousand years (assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves) scientists may look back at what we know now and laugh at how ignorant we were.

If science deals only with 'facts', how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer? Atoms were first postulated by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers. They had no evidence for them, and no way to prove whether they were right or not. The argument for atoms was based on philosophy, not science. But that concept helped scientists to find real atoms and the subatomic particles they are made of.

Today science tells us that there are a certain number of particles making up atoms, and that is all. There are no 'hidden variables' or a finer structure that we can perceive. But still a few wrinkles remain. What does this suggest? That our understanding of 'reality' may not just be incomplete, but is only barely scratching the surface. That is not a scientific argument, it is philosophy. We have no evidence for it, just as we had no evidence for atoms until the 1800's.

99% of philosophy may be 'bunk', but that doesn't mean it has no value. You may think that science is so advanced now that there is no room for philosophy. But you would be wrong. 99% of 'science' today is directed at solving the practical problems we are facing. Questions like 'does anything exist' or 'are we all living in a simulation' may seem silly, but they can goad science into exploring stuff that would otherwise be ignored.

Science has a tendency to suffer from the 'Streetlight effect'.

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".

Philosophy might be stumbling around in the dark, but sometimes that's where you find things. Philosophy can't tell you what's there, but it can tell you what might be there and could be worth shining a light on.

 

[Belz...]

But we don't know what 'reality' is

It's going to sound silly, but what do you mean by "is"? I define "is" in this context by "does". Reality is what it does. There's no need to, and no point in, musing about an ultimate "nature" of things, because you can always put another turtle under the other one ad infinitum.

100 years ago we thought we had a handle on 'reality'. But a few niggling wrinkles remained, and when we tried to smooth them out we discovered a whole new 'reality' that we hadn't imagined before.

But it didn't invalidate the reality we knew then. Newtonian physics still work.

If science deals only with 'facts', how do we deal with subjects that currently have no 'factual' answer?

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. What subjects have no factual answer?

ETA: If you mean topics that have no factual basis, then science doesn't care, and is not equipped to deal with it. You use whatever best tool is available for that task.

Atoms were first postulated by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers.

Careful. We used the same word, but that doesn't mean the concept is in any way the same.

They had no evidence for them, and no way to prove whether they were right or not.

And now we know they were not.

But that concept helped scientists to find real atoms and the subatomic particles they are made of.

Now that's flat out false. It's not as if scientists, 2000 years later, rediscovered Greek texts and thought "woah, we should look for that." The two are unrelated.

This is the unfortunate consequence of the "history of things" we get in school chemistry. Often they draw a history of things that aren't even related as if it's a progression.

Philosophy might be stumbling around in the dark, but sometimes that's where you find things.

Philosophy isn't stumbling in the dark. It's sitting in the dark and imagining what might be there. And when you shine a light on the dark and show that that thing isn't there, it just moves it further into the dark.

 

[AlexPontik]

What is there?

Well, there is nothing, something and something else.
Why?
Because if there is something else we already said it.
And why did we add something else from the beginning?
Because it's different than nothing or something, it is...something else.
And when you are asleep in any sense you do nothing (to go to bed you do nothing)
And when you are awake in any sense you do something (to get off bed you do something)
so, in the end, you can do nothing, and you can do something, and you want to feel...something else.

 

[Belz...]

What is there?

Well, there is nothing, something and something else.

We already know there's not nothing. What the hell is "something else"?

And when you are asleep in any sense you do nothing (to go to bed you do nothing)
And when you are awake in any sense you do something (to get off bed you do something)
so, in the end, you can do nothing, and you can do something, and you want to feel...something else.

That is not what the thread is about.

 

[AlexPontik]

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans, regardless the fact that most humans don’t get that…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd afteR they startEd GETting REAL?!.