Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

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?

Cue nothing but a huffy "Oh but Descartes is a world respected philosopbhopher and look all these smart people who agree with him and the other smart things he said..."

 

[Darat]

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.

I doubt anyone would claim that since we know in some fundamental areas our theories are wrong as they cannot explain the evidence and in other areas we haven't any sound theories. But we do know what we know so in other areas the theories are as sound as they can be - for example, the theory that lets us know the nature of table salt is always going to be correct, whether it was formulated a billion years ago or in a billion years from now.

...snip...
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 !!!

It's not a description it is a fact - table salt is chlorine and sodium and that won't ever change.

 

[Darat]

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

Nope - you appear to think science is about one singular theory that must be able to predict everything else it is wrong. Which shows your understanding of science is flawed.

 

[Steve]

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"

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?

Descartes did not exist. No one can prove that he did.

 

[abaddon]

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

Not all of us.

 

[lomiller]

Nope - you appear to think science is about one singular theory that must be able to predict everything

I pointed out that in the example you provided you conflated a theory with a prediction, that's it.

 

[abaddon]

Descartes did not exist. No one can prove that he did.

But he thought he existed. Philosophy for the win.

If I had such a thing as a soul, I just sold it for tuppence to a bonkers being who plainly cannot exist.

Somebody correct me, theology allows anyone to make up anything, right?

 

[lomiller]

Descartes did not exist. No one can prove that he did.

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.

 

[Belz...]

I pointed out that in the example you provided you conflated a theory with a prediction, that's it.

Wow, I guess you're just flat out ignoring me now.

 

[LarryS]

I doubt anyone would claim that since we know in some fundamental areas our theories are wrong as they cannot explain the evidence and in other areas we haven't any sound theories. But we do know what we know so in other areas the theories are as sound as they can be - for example, the theory that lets us know the nature of table salt is always going to be correct, whether it was formulated a billion years ago or in a billion years from now.

It's not a description it is a fact - table salt is chlorine and sodium and that won't ever change.

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

 

[IanS]

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.

Not quite (since we are getting bogged down in the meaning of mere words & language ... as always when philosophy gets into the discussion) - we do not know that "no scientific theory, hypothesis or claim can be said to be literally true till the end of time true;" ... we don't know if that's true or not, perhaps some current theories may continue to be regarded as true for as long as human people survive. But as I've said before (at least a dozen times) – scientists do not need to (and few ever do) waste their time & public money indulging philosophers in their wish to argue indefinitely about such things.

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.

For example, the question, 'Is there a scientifivally demonstrated procedure to greatly redu ce 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 !!!

Yes. All that we/science are doing is discovering what appear to be the correct explanations for anything, and showing that they succeed to a very high degree of accuracy (often vastly greater accuracy than is needed for the task), and where those explanations can be shown as repeatable a million times out of a million trials. That's all we ever need to do.

Just because some other subject, such as philosophy, wants to claim that we cannot prove for sure that our answers are certain to be true for ever, and just because it may criticise that as a limit to science (but where it itself (philosophy) has turned out to be infinitely less capable and less useful (almost no use at all … except for creating arguments and carrying them on indefinitely) ), 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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so let's sum up.

- "Philosophers" don't question reality, we all just imagined that and it never happened and we're lying. (Please ignore the title of the thread.)

- Okay but "real" philosophers don't question reality. How one tells a "real" philosopher from a not real one is, I guess, a question best left to the philosophers.

- Besides one person saying something, literally just mouthing the words, proved reality anyway.

- Al the questions we keep asking have already been answered, apparently when multiple people just weren't looking and we all missed it.

 

[Belz...]

Just because some other subject, such as philosophy, wants to claim that we cannot prove for sure that our answers are certain to be true for ever, and just because it may criticise that as a limit to science (but where it itself (philosophy) has turned out to be infinitely less capable and less useful (almost no use at all … except for creating arguments and carrying them on indefinitely) ), 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.

And that's the crux: some of us grew up and decided to use the best tools we had to approximate an understanding of the workings of reality in order to use it to our advantage... while others stuck to a juvenile need for "truth" and certainty, something that is probably impossible anyway.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that's the crux: some of us grew up and decided to use the best tools we had to approximate an understanding of the workings of reality in order to use it to our advantage... while others stuck to a juvenile need for "truth" and certainty, something that is probably impossible anyway.

Which is double hilarious since the need for (artificial, basically self-defeating) "certainty" is also a philosophical hallmark.

"Literally all the evidence we have based on observation, experimentation, reduction of biases, repeatability, falsifiability, etc points to X" gets dismissed because it's not some made up, impossible level of "certain" but then Philosophy just "declares" absolute truths with nothing at all to back it up and pats itself on the back and looks at science like it did it better.

 

[lomiller]

Wow, I guess you're just flat out ignoring me now.

I'm not trying to, but I do have other things to do besides read this thread. I presume you mean this?

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

Predictions are not part of a theory else using them as evidence for a theory would be self referential and incorrect.

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

And I answered that I don't understand the context of the question but that there are some cases where they are treated as mutually exclusive.

I don't know if there are cases where they are not viewed as mutually exclusive, perhaps there are. I don't know of any philosophy based objection to interpretations of QM under which something may be considered true and false at the same time.

 

[Belz...]

Which is double hilarious since the need for (artificial, basically self-defeating) "certainty" is also a philosophical hallmark.

"Literally all the evidence we have based on observation, experimentation, reduction of biases, repeatability, falsifiability, etc points to X" gets dismissed because it's not some made up, impossible level of "certain" but then Philosophy just "declares" absolute truths with nothing at all to back it up and pats itself on the back and looks at science like it did it better.

It's not very different from religion in that sense, is it? Theists often point to science's uncertainties as some sort of flaw. They don't understand that it's actually a strength.

 

[lomiller]

Okay so let's sum up.

- "Philosophers" don't question reality, we all just imagined that and it never happened and we're lying. (Please ignore the title of the thread.)

It's take you 25 pages to realize that everyone involved has already rejected the premise in the thread title?

 

[Belz...]

And I answered that I don't understand the context of the question but that there are some cases where they are treated as mutually exclusive.

I don't know if there are cases where they are not viewed as mutually exclusive, perhaps there are. I don't know of any philosophy based objection to interpretations of QM under which something may be considered true and false at the same time.

That's the exact same answer you gave yesterday and that I told you does NOT answer the question. I'm asking you if the question ("are X and ~X mutually exclusive?") itself is philosophical. Why is that so hard to understand? Look:

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

That's the actual wording of the question.

 

[Thermal]

Okay so let's sum up.

- "Philosophers" don't question reality, we all just imagined that and it never happened and we're lying. (Please ignore the title of the thread.)

- Okay but "real" philosophers don't question reality. How one tells a "real" philosopher from a not real one is, I guess, a question best left to the philosophers.

- Besides one person saying something, literally just mouthing the words, proved reality anyway.

- Al the questions we keep asking have already been answered, apparently when multiple people just weren't looking and we all missed it.

All wrong. Anyone can use philosophy, just like any one can use science. It's only your ****** up strawman version that can't keep it straight.

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

You want to muse about the workability of communism? You're provisionally a philosopher, specifically a political philosopher. That doesn't mean you have to ponder whether or not you have hands.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's take you 25 pages to realize that everyone involved has already rejected the premise in the thread title?

Horsecrap.

The obvious, "Not officially sanctioned seriously real philosopher talk" way of wording the premise was rejected.

"Does reality exist" is still a philosophy cherished icon.

If you're sitting here telling me if I was a philosophy convention I'd have a hard time finding a "dualist" who would argue against my "materialism" or encounter the phrase "Naïve Realism" then you're just straight up insane and/or dishonest on a massive scale.