U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2016, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Yes but it has nothing to do with this discussion. You stated: However the ones you listed in purple are the fundamental assumptions of Science which cannot [impossible] be proven scientifically at all.

I am showing you that yes they can. We can assume the Sun will rise tomorrow. We can scientifically calculate exactly what time it's going to rise.
Btw, I did not have any intend to link your "We can assume the Sun will rise tomorrow" with the fundamental assumptions of Science in purple.

If it is a scientific basis, there is no need to assume the Sun will arise tomorrow at all.
To calculate scientifically 'the Sun will arise tomorrow at a precise time and any location' is very basic science stuffs which any high school kid can do.

But this exercise is not 100% certain nor 100% true nor 100% realistic plus such answers are conditioned upon the fundamental assumptions that the universe is consistent.

This is why Hume had thrown in the spanner into scientific knowledge with his problem of induction.

To deal with higher truths than scientific truths, one has to bring in philosophy to understand the limitations of scientific knowledge and truths even when such knowledge is without doubts very useful.

In this case I was trying to point out that Hume had revealed there are higher truths to scientific truths and note Kant came later to reveal there are more finer truths to scientific truths than what Hume had revealed.

Note Popper argued Scientific "truths" or knowledge are merely polished conjectures.

Quote:
You can't be serious. Science does not rely on Philosophy.

Philosophy, in no way shape or form overrides science. You are clearly biased against science and I am not sure where people like you get your disdain for science...it's simply bizarre. Science is the best we have produced thus far, the evidence of this is all around us. Look at all the things it has taught us, and all the ways we have put that knowledge into working use.
I have a lot of respect for scientific knowledge and I believe it is definitely necessary for the progress of humanity, but one must recognize its limitations.

Despite the contribution of Science and its potential, there is still a VERY big gap within the fields of morality for humanity to close and there is no way for Science to contribute significantly in this.
What is needed to close the Moral Gap is the overriding knowledge of philosophy-proper [as the Quarterback or CEO] with assistance from Science in providing the relevant knowledge amongst others necessary fields of knowledge.

So my point is;
Whilst scientific knowledge is very useful they are merely 'crude' truths relative to the higher truths and knowledge that are revealed via philosophy.

Last edited by Continuum; 06-10-2016 at 12:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2016, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Although I disagree with Daniel Dennett on some of things, this quote of his is basically my main point:

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. — Daniel Dennett

And I don't want to speak for Continuum but I think this would be their point as well.

To make it clear, I love science, insofar as I believe in it more than other fields of study because it is concrete to us. Because statistically science makes sense. Because it is the best we have at explaining the world around us. However to ignore that science and or the underpinnings of the doing of science isn't closely related to philosophy is just fool-hardy.

For me, there is no agenda other than the realization that philosophy plays a big part in our lives if you realize it or not. I'm not religious, I'm not promoting pseudoscience and I don't think that the earth is flat or vaccines are bad. It's just amazing to me that anyone would not recognize the importance and marriage of the two fields.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Well said, I agree with the above totally.

I have been discussing and holding to the above points in various philosophy forums for umpteens of years.
I have not come across any solid counter views for Science that can better the above views.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 06:29 AM
 
6,848 posts, read 3,718,587 times
Reputation: 18088
To paraphrase a great scientist and philosopher, "Science is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,676,724 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
To paraphrase a great scientist and philosopher, "Science is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
There are no facts. Just subjective, personal observations from multiple observers who get together to reach some concensus. The concensus that is reached is all predicated on a unpredictable event caused by the interaction of the observers. If it is facts you are looking for, stop looking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 01:00 PM
 
6,848 posts, read 3,718,587 times
Reputation: 18088
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
There are no facts. Just subjective, personal observations from multiple observers who get together to reach some concensus. The concensus that is reached is all predicated on a unpredictable event caused by the interaction of the observers. If it is facts you are looking for, stop looking.
Ah, there it is, the ultimate trump card, simple denial of objective reality, that makes all philosophers think themselves wise, and all others to think them otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,676,724 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
Ah, there it is, the ultimate trump card, simple denial of objective reality, that makes all philosophers think themselves wise, and all others to think them otherwise.
It's not a trump card. It is a description of the process. The problem with most scientists is that they have fallen into such a deep habit of repeating their own myths, that their myths have turned into some sort of hard fact for themselves. But anyone looking from the outside in can easily observe the process and pretty simply describe what is going on.

Truly the Emperor has no clothes, but the Emperor is so powerful that most people are intimidated into keeping their mouths shut. I cringe as I observe philosophy students suck up to the almighty science major, seeking some sort of approval. From whom? For what reason? To become part of the fundraising machine? Well if someone is young, I can understand why participating in the fundraising machine may be appealing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,821,740 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
Ah, there it is, the ultimate trump card, simple denial of objective reality, that makes all philosophers think themselves wise, and all others to think them otherwise.
Spot on and the otherwise comes from the fact that none of these science bashing posters have a single shred of scientific knowledge or scientific training and education.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-10-2016 at 03:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,676,724 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Spot on and the otherwise comes from the fact that none of these science basing posters have a single shred of scientific knowledge or scientific training and education.
We should have a poll. Are scientists searching for:

1) Facts,

2) Truths,

3) More angles to raise money?

My vote is for more money. And you said that posters don't have a shred of knowledge about the scientific process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,821,740 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
We should have a poll. Are scientists searching for:

1) Facts,

2) Truths,

3) More angles to raise money?

My vote is for more money. And you said that posters don't have a shred of knowledge about the scientific process.
No this is what I said: Spot on and the otherwise comes from the fact that none of these science basing posters have a single shred of scientific knowledge or scientific training and education.

I have read enough of your posts to know that you have no formal training in science. Your posts also reveal that you don't lack genetic knowledge as knowledge about the field of science in general.

What is Science?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,676,724 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
No this is what I said: Spot on and the otherwise comes from the fact that none of these science basing posters have a single shred of scientific knowledge or scientific training and education.

I have read enough of your posts to know that you have no formal training in science. Your posts also reveal that you don't lack genetic knowledge as knowledge about the field of science in general.

What is Science?
The Business of Science. It's a business with marketing and it's own police to make sure the business continues to be lucrative and pretty easy living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top