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, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,037 posts, read 4,834,606 times
Reputation: 7067

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
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.
Thanks for confirming what I just posted about your lack of knoweldge of the world of Science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2016, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,682,560 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Thanks for confirming what I just posted about your lack of knoweldge of the world of Science.
I've been around long enough to know what is exactly going on in the rather icky world of science. There are scientists who speak out against the corruption that totally pollutes the science world but they are quickly ostracized and silenced by the science police, who are nothing more than paid assassins. Heck, it's and easy life if one can live with oneself. I imagine it comes easy for the assassins.

Last edited by richrf; 06-10-2016 at 04:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,037 posts, read 4,834,606 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
I've been around long enough to know what is exactly going on in the rather icky world of science. There are scientists who speak out against the corruption that totally pollutes the science world but they are quickly ostracized and silenced by the science police, who are nothing more than paid assassins. Heck, it's and easy life of one can live with oneself. I imagine it comes easy to the assassins.
Again thanks once again for further demonstrating what I posted earlier about your lack of knowledge with the world of science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 09:33 PM
 
6,867 posts, read 3,733,857 times
Reputation: 18127
You might as well try explaining gravity waves to a concrete block. It will be easier and much more effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,588,795 times
Reputation: 461
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.
Note "objectivity" is none other than intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus. This is factual. Thus "objectivity" is meta-subjectivity.

When one put too much emphasis on Science to the degree of idolizing it, that would lead to Scientism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Quote:
Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1]
It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2]

The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9]

Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[10]
Note the fate of logical positivism which idolized Science like there is no tomorrow.

Scientism is replacing God with Science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,682,560 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
You might as well try explaining gravity waves to a concrete block. It will be easier and much more effective.
Impressive lingo. Will it cure cancer? If it will, there will be more money in it for you. Good luck!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,037 posts, read 4,834,606 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If it is a scientific basis, there is no need to assume the Sun will arise tomorrow at all.
It was not a scientific basis back when early humans existed. They just assumed it would rise every day as it did. I am sure animals instinctively know that the sun will rise...just as they instinctively know when to migrate. Science on the other hand gives us the knowledge to understand why the sun "rises" and at what time it will "rise".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
That's the beauty of science. It has range. It does not matter how simple the experiment is or how easily one can calculate when it will rise...the fact that the calculation even works at all is the beauty of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
Of course it's 100% certain, true as well as realistic, to know that the sun will rise tomorrow, just as it has for millions of years. It will continue to do this exactly as it does until we are shifted out of this orbit, or the Sun turns into a White Dwarf.

Many things about the natural phenomena seen on Earth and in the Cosmos, are able to be studied, due to consistent behaviors. However the Universe is not consistent.

We have no warning of when the next huge Asteroid will slam into us, until it's too late. We have no way of predicting the next big earthquake or tsunami. We have no way of predicting how long anything will survive once it's born. There is no consistency in any of this, yet science can explain how and why these things occur. The Universe is expanding now at a much faster rate than we previous thought...how is there consistency in any of this?

Scince is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
There are no absolute truths in anything. Science has proven itself able to provide the best estimates of the truth (i.e., what things are really like) based on observations, predictions and experimentation. These processes, which anyone — given the time and willingness to learn — can use to replicate/validate the estimates of truth generally accepted by the scientific community. If they are very good and very lucky, they may even create new estimates of truth not previously known or accepted today.

Are there actual “truths” that the scientific process is not able to evaluate? Perhaps, but without a method for me to replicate/validate those truths, what good are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
I don't know why you call it limitations vs. some things are simply outside the scope of science. Not because science is limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
There is no way that any sole entity is going to contribute significantly in closing the morality gap anymore than Science, Philosophy or Religion can try to. Our moral compass is based upon us individually. No outside entity such as Science, Philosophy or Religion is going to move this compass in closing the gap. It has not occurred at any time throughout recorded human history, and this should be a good indicator that it's most likely never going to happen as long as our type of human species exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
That's just about as limiting as some Religions sound...as long as you belief what they are preaching then the world will be a better place. No thanks...what would be better is to figure out how to to to help humans to wake themselves up, help them realize that they are the commander of their own minds. I just don't see how this will ever occur with all the different cultures, religions and belief systems.

Human intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen. The most frightening thing about humans is the ease with which their intelligence can be sweet talked, overwhelmed or subverted by other hard wired tendencies, sometimes disguised as right of reason, is worrisome. Nazi Germany is a clear example of this. Religious fundamentalism is another, so is the anti-intellectual movement we are now witnessing in the US.

Morality comes from within. It's innately wired within us...most of us know right from wrong. Most of us don't want to harm others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
There are no "truths" in science. The point of science, and the reason it works, is because you don’t try and prove something that you like to be true…you also try and prove it to be false…and that is what's *really important*.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-10-2016 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,588,795 times
Reputation: 461
Another point re Scientism, [from wiki same link as earlier].
For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21]
British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."[22]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,588,795 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
It was not a scientific basis back when early humans existed. They just assumed it would rise every day as it did. I am sure animals instinctively know that the sun will rise...just as they instinctively know when to migrate. Science on the other hand gives us the knowledge to understand why the sun "rises" and at what time it will "rise".
Your early humans and animals element if off topic. You are mixing up the issue.
Earlier you stated something like you can assume based on the Scientific approach.
That is why I stated if you rely in the Scientific approach, there is no need to assume at all, just compute it with a conditional certainty.

Quote:
Of course it's 100% certain, true as well as realistic, to know that the sun will rise tomorrow, just as it has for millions of years. It will continue to do this exactly as it does until we are shifted out of this orbit, or the Sun turns into a White Dwarf.
It is only 100% certain as conditioned upon the Scientific Framework. It cannot be 100% certain within reality.
You can say it is 100% certain true because Science say so, but not reality which is not Science per-se. Science is merely a part of reality.

Quote:
Are there actual “truths” that the scientific process is not able to evaluate? Perhaps, but without a method for me to replicate/validate those truths, what good are they?
I don't know why you call it limitations vs. some things are simply outside the scope of science. Not because science is limited.
There are a priori truths that can be justified with reason and not necessary Science.

Quote:
There is no way that any sole entity is going to contribute significantly in closing the morality gap anymore than Science, Philosophy or Religion can try to. Our moral compass is based upon us individually. No outside entity such as Science, Philosophy or Religion is going to move this compass in closing the gap. It has not occurred at any time throughout recorded human history, and this should be a good indicator that it's most likely never going to happen as long as our type of human species exists.
That's just about as limiting as some Religions sound...as long as you belief what they are preaching then the world will be a better place. No thanks...what would be better is to figure out how to to to help humans to wake themselves up, help them realize that they are the commander of their own minds. I just don't see how this will ever occur with all the different cultures, religions and belief systems.
You are putting too much weight on Science to contribute to closing the morality Gap.
As I had stated Science will definitely be useful but is limited when it comes to the final points of Morality.

Even in normal decision makings, Science is merely a tool that provide knowledge, and decision makers has to use wisdom to choose amongst many alternatives generated from scientific and other knowledge.

Religion will be obsolete and not critical to close the moral gap in the future. Philosophy is needed to act as the CEO [quarterback] to take on the overall responsibility to close the moral gap.

Quote:
Human intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen. The most frightening thing about humans is the ease with which their intelligence can be sweet talked, overwhelmed or subverted by other hard wired tendencies, sometimes disguised as right of reason, is worrisome. Nazi Germany is a clear example of this. Religious fundamentalism is another, so is the anti-intellectual movement we are now witnessing in the US.
This is why humanity need the meta knowledge of philosophy to iron out all the kinks and make wise decisions.

Quote:
Morality comes from within. It's innately wired within us...most of us know right from wrong. Most of us don't want to harm others.
It is not that easy as what you stated above. The closing of the morality gap to a narrower gap in the future is a very complex process that imperatively need philosophy in the background to control all the complex processes.

Quote:
There are no "truths" in science. The point of science, and the reason it works, is because you don’t try and prove something that you like to be true…you also try and prove it to be false…and that is what's *really important*.
The reason it works is not good enough especially when nuclear power works and is very powerful. Humanity need philosophy not science to propagate truths in correspondence to reality and ensure such very useful scientific knowledge do not end up making the human species extinct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2016, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,037 posts, read 4,834,606 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Your early humans and animals element if off topic. You are mixing up the issue.
I don't think so. You are making assumptions about Science that are not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Earlier you stated something like you can assume based on the Scientific approach. That is why I stated if you rely in the Scientific approach, there is no need to assume at all, just compute it with a conditional certainty.
There appears to be confusion.
You posted this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
This Scientific Framework will comprised the Scientific Method, various processes which are not part of the Scientific Method like peer-review, consensus, establishing of universal generic assumptions, the gathering of scientific minds in conferences and sharing of views, various maintenance processes of the Scientific Framework.

Basic assumptions of science
These fundamental assumptions to ground Science are not scientifically justified but simply assumed and taken as grounds of Science and scientific knowledge.
I took out the 3 assumptions in that link and showed you how those assumptions are accurate. However those 3 assumptions do not apply to the entire Universe or everything in science. How could they? We see things occurring in the Universe that we have no clue or explanation based on all the Laws of Physics that we know. So to say that all aspects of science rely on these 3 assumptions or that everything in Science is confined by the Scientific Method is simply not accurate.

Many branches of science make unexpected discoveries all the time without following the Scientific Method. It happens all the time in Medical Science. Aspects of the Scientific Method are employed to ensure that reproducible data can be gained but other than that if you think every singe discovery in science was made by following step by step the Scientific Method I can assure you that this is not true.

To establish any finding in science as a Theory or a solid body of evidence then this discovery must be tested and re-tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is only 100% certain as conditioned upon the Scientific Framework. It cannot be 100% certain within reality.
This is not true. It was 100% certain the moment our Solar System came into existence and settled down enough for life to form. It was 100% certain that the Sun would rise long before humans evolved. Science only explains the predicable nature of events that it observes in our Universe. The sun rising is not conditioned by anything here on Earth that humans have conjured up. With 100% certainty it's going to rise tomorrow. If I never heard of science I can assure you that the sun will rise tomorrow with 100% certainty. Now with our added Scientific knowledge we can say with confidence that the Sun will rise tomorrow. It's no where near it's death phase yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You can say it is 100% certain true because Science say so, but not reality which is not Science per-se. Science is merely a part of reality.
Again if I had lived on an island where my ancestors had lived for 1000's years watching the Sun rise, I would also have 100% certainty I would see the Sun rising every morning until my passing, without even having known what Science said. After the comma in your quote the sentence does not make sense. Everything that we perceive and think is our personal reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
There are a priori truths that can be justified with reason and not necessary Science.
This is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You are putting too much weight on Science to contribute to closing the morality Gap.
You misread something if that is what you think I am saying. I said: There is no way that any sole entity is going to contribute significantly in closing the morality gap anymore than Science, Philosophy or Religion can try to. Any sole entity and that includes both Science and Philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As I had stated Science will definitely be useful but is limited when it comes to the final points of Morality.
As I stated all entities are going to be limited in it's attempt to close the gap on morality. You are living in a dream world if you think otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Even in normal decision makings, Science is merely a tool that provide knowledge, and decision makers has to use wisdom to choose amongst many alternatives generated from scientific and other knowledge.
Science is more than just "merely a tool". It generates very useful knowledge about the Universe for us to use. In fact Scince has provided us with all the knowledge we have today about the Universe and the world we live in. The knowledge about how the Universe works comes from Science.

Where does your disdain for a subject that you are not formally educated in come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Religion will be obsolete and not critical to close the moral gap in the future. Philosophy is needed to act as the CEO [quarterback] to take on the overall responsibility to close the moral gap.
Both Religion and Philosophy will be obsolete. I think Philosophy is heading down this path at a much faster rate then Religion. Science is making Philosophy obsolete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
This is why humanity need the meta knowledge of philosophy to iron out all the kinks and make wise decisions.
No they don't need the flaky Philosophy fluff anymore than they need flaky Religious fluff. What humanity needs is a serious education in the sciences, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit. Humanity needs to move back into communing with nature and being curious about the Cosmos and the world that we live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is not that easy as what you stated above. The closing of the morality gap to a narrower gap in the future is a very complex process that imperatively need philosophy in the background to control all the complex processes.
I never said it was easy or difficult. What I said is that...Morality comes from within. It's innately wired within us...most of us know right from wrong. Most of us don't want to harm others. I don't know about you but its very easy for me to keep my morality in check.

The human condition is what it is. Like I said the gap will never close until humanity is in a different form. The best we can do in the meantime is find a way to educate the masses...especially in science, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit. Humanity needs to move back into communing with nature and being curious about the Cosmos and the world that we live in. Not what most are doing today. How many people commune with nature daily? How many sit outside are able to see 1000's of stars? How many live with peace all around them and not in overcrowd cities with lots of noise? How many people worldwide have attained higher education or a college degree?

As long as the human population spirals out of control the more damaged and sick humanity will become.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The reason it works is not good enough especially when nuclear power works and is very powerful.
Its clear you missed the point. Let's try this again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
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.
There are no "truths" in science. The point of science, and the reason it works, is because you don’t try and prove something that you like to be true…you also try and prove it to be false…and that is what's *really important*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Humanity need philosophy not science to propagate truths in correspondence to reality and ensure such very useful scientific knowledge do not end up making the human species extinct.
No they need a well rounded serious education in many disciplines that will help them understand the world that we live in. Humans need to collectively learn how to balance mind, body and spirit, learn how to meditate and go deep within to find their truths. Humans need to learn deep self-reflection and deep introspection techniques.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-11-2016 at 12:12 AM..
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