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 06-11-2016, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I don't think so. You are making assumptions about Science that are not accurate.

There appears to be confusion.
You posted this.

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.
Whilst not all discoveries followed every single steps of the Scientific Method, there are certain imperative elements within the Scientific Framework that must be complied with.
The critical criteria are verifiability, testability and repeatability.

The general rule is Science has to depend on default assumptions like those stated in the link, but they do not necessary be mentioned in all scientific discoveries.
The point is when one speak for Science one has to take it on an universal basis, you cannot say describe every particular and specific situations.

Quote:
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.
If there is 100% certainty in Science, it must be qualified to the Scientific Framework. The Scientific Framework is a closed system within the whole of reality which is an open-system.


Therefore you can only assert the following;
It is with 100% certainty Scientifically the Sun will rise tomorrow.

You cannot assert without qualification, otherwise that would be a absolute truth [which you agree do not exists] that;
It is with 100% certainty [no qualifications] the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Btw, I mentioned Hume throwing a spanner into the certainty of Science. I wonder you really understand the issues involved.
As per Hume, he would make such statement,
There is no 100% certain [philosophically] the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Any claims of certainty [no qualifications] is psychological, emotions and driven by customs and habits.
Are you disputing Hume?

Quote:
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.
Note my counter above on why there is no unqualified 100% certainty.
I agree there is personal reality which may include others like a schizophrenic and others in their own specific personal reality.
What is critical here is a collective reality based on consensus grounded on our average DNA and human nature.

Quote:
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.
I agree with your first statement. What I added is we need philosophy to be the supervisory position to co-ordinate all the various fields on necessary knowledge to close the Moral Gap.

Quote:
Science is more than just "merely a tool". It generates very useful knowledge about the Universe for us to use. In fact Science 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.
Regardless Science at best is a double-side-blade a tool that can cut both ways.

Quote:
Where does your disdain for a subject that you are not formally educated in come from?
I told you I have a lot of respects for Science and its knowledge, where did that 'disdain' come from? The point is when we leverage on philosophy we must be critical of everything including philosophy itself.
Note the points on Scientism I highlighted in the earlier posts which you should avoid being a victim of.


Quote:
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. 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.
I think you got the wrong understanding on what is philosophy-proper is.
The fact is like all organization need a CEO or generic Management skills, there is a need for a generic skill to manage and control all knowledge from the sciences, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit, to ensure objectives are met efficiently.

Btw, what is your definition of Philosophy?

Quote:
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.
All humans has an innate moral sense and compass but such an impulse within the individuals need to be managed and control on a collective basis whether by groups or the collective itself.

Quote:
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.
You keep referring to science, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit, but there must a knowledge that co-ordinate, organize, manage and control them collectively to ensure collective moral objectives are met efficiently. You have missed out these essential elements and those knowledge are from philosophy proper.



Quote:
Its clear you missed the point. Let's try this again.

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*.
You missed my point as well. Nuclear and Quantum theory has been proven to be true and had been put into practice by technologists and exploited by various parties. But Science do not take care of the moral and ethics aspects.

Quote:
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.
I agree humans need to cover as many fields of knowledge as possible.
To ensure such a wide range of knowledge is direct efficient towards the well being of the individuals and humanity we need a certain knowledge and skill above these knowledge to ensure there is co-ordination, organization, and control. These look like management principles, but there is more to it to ensure efficiency for the collective and for this, we need philosophy-proper not academic nor conventional philosophy btw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2016, 04:49 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,825,988 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Whilst not all discoveries followed every single steps of the Scientific Method, there are certain imperative elements within the Scientific Framework that must be complied with.
The critical criteria are verifiability, testability and repeatability.
You left out a few. It's also must be observable and predictable and subject to external/peer review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The general rule is Science has to depend on default assumptions like those stated in the link, but they do not necessary be mentioned in all scientific discoveries.
This is simply not true. You can listen to Lawrence Krauss saying on many occasions that the Universe continues to surprise us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The point is when one speak for Science one has to take it on an universal basis, you cannot say describe every particular and specific situations.
Again this is simply not accurate especially when dealing with Medical Science. Here is a great study that shows why it's not wise to take things on a Universal basis. Falsely Undetectable TSH in a Cohort of South Asian Euthyroid Patients
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If there is 100% certainty in Science, it must be qualified to the Scientific Framework. The Scientific Framework is a closed system within the whole of reality which is an open-system.
Again this is not an accurate representation. The scientific method is an ongoing process. We now have more powerful data analysis techniques, more sophisticated equipment for making observations and running experiments, and a much greater breadth and depth of scientific knowledge.

This is why scientists use tentative words when writing about discoveries...it's because at any time a scientific finding can change as more advanced discoveries are made.

Modern Science: What's Changing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore you can only assert the following;
It is with 100% certainty Scientifically the Sun will rise tomorrow.

You cannot assert without qualification, otherwise that would be a absolute truth [which you agree do not exists] that;
It is with 100% certainty [no qualifications] the Sun will rise tomorrow.
I am not sure if this is just a play on words. It is not an absolute truth if I claim that I know with 100% certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That is not the same as saying that I know with 100% certainty that the sun is always going to rise and this is a fixed infinity event.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, I mentioned Hume throwing a spanner into the certainty of Science. I wonder you really understand the issues involved.
As per Hume, he would make such statement,
There is no 100% certain [philosophically] the Sun will rise tomorrow.
No offense but Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist. Out of those few 'ist's I don't see the word Scientist. Also he also existed in the 1700's and I am much more into modern thinking than playing words games as exemplified in this sun rising example. I see no issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
BtwAny claims of certainty [no qualifications] is psychological, emotions and driven by customs and habits.
Or the claim of certainty about the sun rising tomorrow comes from my understanding/knowledge about our Solar System and our Sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Are you disputing Hume?
If he limits why someone makes a certainty claim with what you wrote above then yes I totally disagree. Sure there are cases where those assertions hold true but not in all cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note my counter above on why there is no unqualified 100% certainty.
I agree there is personal reality which may include others like a schizophrenic and others in their own specific personal reality.
I disagree and this is merely your chosen reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
What is critical here is a collective reality based on consensus grounded on our average DNA and human nature.
You are going to have to flesh this one out a bit more so I can understand what you are saying. Based on what consensus grounded on what average DNA? What do you mean average DNA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I agree with your first statement. What I added is we need philosophy to be the supervisory position to co-ordinate all the various fields on necessary knowledge to close the Moral Gap.
I think we are way past all the knoweldge that Philosophy has to offer us with respect to Ethics and Morality. We have come a long way from the Dark Ages.

What we need is a world full of educated advanced people who are also wise and connected to nature in addition to being highly educated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Regardless Science at best is a double-side-blade a tool that can cut both ways.
Anything that you can think of, can have this double-sided-blade that can cut both ways. For all the bad you think science has done...don't forget that it has brought far more good then bad to the world. Human living conditions have drastically improved due to science. Human diseases that were once wiping out millions have been eradicated or are now easily curable with simple medicines. Just look at the vast amounts of knowledge about the Universe that we have discovered just in the past 25 years! It's incredible. Look at how we now understand so much more about the world we live in...all due to Scientific inquiry and discoveries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I told you I have a lot of respects for Science and its knowledge, where did that 'disdain' come from? The point is when we leverage on philosophy we must be critical of everything including philosophy itself.
You don't come across as a person who holds science in high esteem. Which is odd to me since you are not formally trained in science. It's makes no sense to me when I read the disdainful things you say about science. As if it's some dumb limited worthless body of knowledge that is inferior on all sides. If you don't hear that in your posts perhaps you need to read through them again.

Science gives us the knowledge about how the Universe works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note the points on Scientism I highlighted in the earlier posts which you should avoid being a victim of.
Where in the quote below do you find me displaying a belief in 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? If you don't see the value of a world with more people who are scientifically literate vs. scientifically illiterate, then all I can say is take a good look around. Ignorance breeds what you see in the world today. Science opens minds to understanding how the Universe works. Investing in STEM is a good investment for society and economies. If you see that as an authoritative view then I say you are the one playing victim to your own created fears based on your disdain of science.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I think you got the wrong understanding on what is philosophy-proper is.
Then help me understand what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The fact is like all organization need a CEO or generic Management skills, there is a need for a generic skill to manage and control all knowledge from the sciences, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit, to ensure objectives are met efficiently.
CONTROL all the knowledge from the sciences, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit, to ensure objectives are met efficiently. That sounds so wrong and vile to me. No one should control knowledge. That's just wrong on so many levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, what is your definition of Philosophy?
The love of wisdom. Descriptive philosophy's central question is What is the nature of reality? Normative Philosophy has two basic questions: What is good? What is bad? Political Philosophy: What functions should the state perform? Can the state justify itself? Critical Philosophy asks: What is true? How can we determine whether something we believe is true, and so constitutes knowledge, or is false, so constitutes error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
All humans has an innate moral sense and compass but such an impulse within the individuals need to be managed and control on a collective basis whether by groups or the collective itself.
Only for the ones who cannot keep their moral compass in check. I certainly don't want to be watched over and controlled. I am from Texas and was brought up in a system where we stand our ground against those who can't maintain their moral compass. We also don't want government interfering in our private lives or telling us what we can and cannot do with our property. I am now in CA where I find this to be the most oppressive place in the US. I don't want to be managed or controlled by anyone. I think most people feel this way. If you can't maintain then you need to be managed and controlled..the choice is yours. Control should never be enforced on people who can maintain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You keep referring to science, humanities, art, music, heath, balancing mind body and spirit, but there must a knowledge that co-ordinate, organize, manage and control them collectively to ensure collective moral objectives are met efficiently. You have missed out these essential elements and those knowledge are from philosophy proper.
Controlling knowledge is wrong and would lead to widespread corruptibility...especially if humans had anything to do with managing and controlling it. Just look at the US music industry if you need an example of what I am talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You missed my point as well. Nuclear and Quantum theory has been proven to be true and had been put into practice by technologists and exploited by various parties. But Science do not take care of the moral and ethics aspects.
After WWI a group of atomic scientists banded together in an attempt to have nuclear weapons banned. A brief history of ethically concerned scientists

ALBERT EINSTEIN

You can't point the finger at all of science and at all scientists today, due to what happened in the past. It's horrific what was invented and used during times of war. During wartime you will see the worst of man come alive. I can only hope we have evolved out of this darkness and that during my lifetime forward, that there will never be another World War.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I agree humans need to cover as many fields of knowledge as possible.
To ensure such a wide range of knowledge is direct efficient towards the well being of the individuals and humanity we need a certain knowledge and skill above these knowledge to ensure there is co-ordination, organization, and control. These look like management principles, but there is more to it to ensure efficiency for the collective and for this, we need philosophy-proper not academic nor conventional philosophy btw.
I disagree, controlling knoweldge is wrong. It would create the largest underground movements as well as become utterly corrupted and tainted. Just look at the US music industry, look around the world where a special group controls the masses. It's as dangerous recipe for disaster and corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I disagree, controlling knowledge is wrong. It would create the largest underground movements as well as become utterly corrupted and tainted. Just look at the US music industry, look around the world where a special group controls the masses. It's as dangerous recipe for disaster and corruption.
Lost my long reply when I submitted the post. I will get retype another later.

One critical point is you misinterpret my use of the term 'control'.
My use of "control" is not related to dictatorial, autocratic control, political control for some vested interests.

If you don't like the term "control" then I will use 'guide' 'co-ordinate' 'steer' and the likes.
It is more like a symphony conductor controlling the overall quality of the music from the combination play of more than 50 musicians playing different instruments.

Another example of 'control' is as principle of management;
Management includes planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization to accomplish the goal or target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management
A thermostat is also some sort of controlling device.

Controlling in the above sense meant to guide actions toward agreed objectives.

I mentioned the application and convergence a wide range of different knowledge from different fields [Science being one] and we need a 'conductor' to optimize the convergence. Philosophy-proper will play that role and definitely not Science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2016, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,825,988 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Lost my long reply when I submitted the post. I will get retype another later.
Oh no! Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If you don't like the term "control" then I will use 'guide' 'co-ordinate' 'steer' and the likes.
It is more like a symphony conductor controlling the overall quality of the music from the combination play of more than 50 musicians playing different instruments.
OK got it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I mentioned the application and convergence a wide range of different knowledge from different fields [Science being one] and we need a 'conductor' to optimize the convergence. Philosophy-proper will play that role and definitely not Science.
All of the branches of Science are already playing that role. Since Science is making Philosophy obsolete, your vision is not going to manifest.

The Social Sciences are what is helping to make Philosophy obsolete.
Quote:
Around the start of the 20th century, Enlightenment philosophy was challenged in various quarters. After the use of classical theories since the end of the scientific revolution, various fields substituted mathematics studies for experimental studies and examining equations to build a theoretical structure.

The development of social science sub-fields became very quantitative in methodology. The interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of scientific inquiry into human behavior, social and environmental factors affecting it, made many of the natural sciences interested in some aspects of social science methodology.

Examples of boundary blurring include emerging disciplines like social research of medicine, sociobiology, neuropsychology, bioeconomics and the history and sociology of science.

Increasingly, quantitative research and qualitative methods are being integrated in the study of human action and its implications and consequences. In the first half of the 20th century, statistics became a free-standing discipline of applied mathematics. Statistical methods were used confidently.

Researchers continue to search for a unified consensus on what methodology might have the power and refinement to connect a proposed "grand theory" with the various mid-range theories that, with considerable success, continue to provide usable frameworks for massive, growing data banks; for more, see consilience. The social sciences will for the foreseeable future be composed of different zones in the research of, and sometime distinct in approach toward, the field.
Social Sciences
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Oh no! Sorry.
OK got it now.
All of the branches of Science are already playing that role. Since Science is making Philosophy obsolete, your vision is not going to manifest.

The Social Sciences are what is helping to make Philosophy obsolete.

Social Sciences
Where it matters there will always be a limit to Science. Since Philosophy-proper is innate to human beings philosophy-proper will always be there.

I believe the social sciences are biting more than it can chew and some day the truth will prevails.
Here is one go at it;

Here is a comment by:
Roberto Mangabeira Unger has spent his academic life at Harvard writing about abstract areas of law, politics, philosophy, and teaching among others one Barack Obama. But hes also had a life outside the ivory tower in politics. He wrote a political manifesto and was a minister in Brazil.

Roberto Unger on What is Wrong with the Social Sciences Today?
NW [interviewer]: Well, whats wrong with the social sciences today?

RU [Roberto Unger ]: The fundamental problem with the social sciences today is that they have severed the link between insight into what exists and imagination of what might exist at the next steps the adjacent possible. To understand a state of affairs, for example in natural science, is just to grasp what that state of affairs might become under certain provocations or with certain circumstances that we impose on it. Well, whats happened in the social sciences is that this vital link between insight into the actual and imagination of the possible has been severed. The result is that the predominant methods in the social sciences lead them to be a kind of retrospective rationalisation of what exists.

NW: Thats really interesting. So, youre saying that the social sciences have moved away from the scientific model, in a sense, because a scientific model will deal with counterfactual situations what would happen if I were to put this chemical into this particular test-*tube, at this heat; whereas, the social sciences have moved far more into the area of descriptive analysis.

RU: They have degenerated into pseudo-*science.

NW: Thats quite a strong claim. Do you want to give an example perhaps of a pseudoscientific move thats been made within the social sciences?

RU: Well, lets take the most important example which is economics.

The first flaw in economics is that its a kind of logic; its theory is almost entirely empty of any causal or normative content. Its a logic machine operating under certain presuppositions. And it gains power only when these assumptions about causality or about objectives are supplied to it from the outside. The result is that economics is either pure and impotent or potent and compromised.

The second flaw of economics is that it tends not only to identify rational maximising activity with the conception of a market but then will work momentously to identify the abstract conception of the market with a very particular set of economic institutions.
The third flaw is that the economics that emerged from the Marginal Revolution of the late 19th century is a theory of exchange or relative prices, almost entirely bereft from any theory of production.

And the fourth flaw could be understood by analogy to Darwins theory of natural selection. In contemporary evolutionary theory, there are really two parts: theres the part about competitive selection and then theres the part of the diverse material through genetic recombination on which the mechanisms of competitive selection operate. Well, what we have in economics today is like half of Darwinism; we have the theory of the competitive selection but no view of the creation of the stuff on which the competitive selection operates.

Now, if you take these four flaws that Ive just described, what they add up to is a pseudo-*‐science. And that pseudo-*‐science is powerfully enlisted in the service of apology rather than of explanation. Lets rebel against it, get rid of it and transform it.
Science is Science as qualified and conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore it is too rhetorical to claim History is a Social Science and thus Science.
History is history, if historian use Scientific knowledge, e.g. carbon dating, it is still History and should not stretched to link it to Science.

At best, they should qualify that certain aspects conform to the Scientific Method or Scientific Framework and not refer to History as Science in certain sense.

Note this silly listing of what is covered under Social Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlin...social_science
That listing include Law, Linguistic, and even Philosophy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
You left out a few. It's also must be observable and predictable and subject to external/peer review.

This is simply not true. You can listen to Lawrence Krauss saying on many occasions that the Universe continues to surprise us.

Again this is simply not accurate especially when dealing with Medical Science. Here is a great study that shows why it's not wise to take things on a Universal basis. Falsely Undetectable TSH in a Cohort of South Asian Euthyroid Patients
Obviously there will be surprises but that is not my point.

My point is the Scientific Framework and its processes are a standard model with its default generic standard and overriding assumptions.
Therefore if some particular experiments did not invoke the generic assumption, e.g. 'the universe is consistent throughout' [assumption A], it does not mean it is not present in the background.
For example if there is an experiment of germs in the human body, then there is no need to invoke assumption A. But if Scientists speculate on germs in human- like aliens in some other planet somewhere in the universe, assumption A will automatically be invoked because it is always there with the Scientific Framework and System.
This is what I meant by default assumptions within the Scientific Framework.

Btw, I believe Medicine is not purely Science.
The medical community merely use Science as a tool to produce medical knowledge.
The medical community has its own specific Medical Framework and System, with its Hippocrates' Oath and other rules and principles.

Quote:
Again this is not an accurate representation. The scientific method is an ongoing process. We now have more powerful data analysis techniques, more sophisticated equipment for making observations and running experiments, and a much greater breadth and depth of scientific knowledge.

This is why scientists use tentative words when writing about discoveries...it's because at any time a scientific finding can change as more advanced discoveries are made.
Modern Science: What's Changing?
Again you missed my point.

What I meant was every knowledge from whatever field must be conditioned and qualified to their respective specific Framework, System and Processes. It is the Framework that lend authority to the knowledge. Therefore all Scientific Knowledge must be qualified to the Scientific Framework [with its Scientific Methods and other processes].
Thus when any knowledge is recognized as Scientific, it is implied it has complied with all the necessary requirements of the Scientific Framework.

Quote:
I am not sure if this is just a play on words. It is not an absolute truth if I claim that I know with 100% certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That is not the same as saying that I know with 100% certainty that the sun is always going to rise and this is a fixed infinity event.
I don't think you fully understood Hume's famous work.

If you do not qualify your statement that would be a claim of absolute knowledge by itself.
If you say, scientifically, I know with 100% certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, then there is no issue because you qualify it as "scientifically" thus compliance to the Scientific Framework.

If you do not qualify then it cannot be absolute knowledge nor true from the philosophical and reality perspective.

According to Hume's theory, it is POSSIBLE anything can happen between now and tomorrow. While you were asleep a big meteorite the size of the Sun could have travelled at such a fast speed [not detectable by our existing instrument] in the direction of our Sun and knock it off its orbit or destroyed it.
The 'Sun not certain to rise tomorrow' is an exaggerated example to emphasize the point but in theory any thing unexpected can happen within an instant.

Why you are so certain is purely psychological and emotional based on customs, constant conjunctions and habits. Your confidence has no element of truth to it.

So this is a dilemma [Science is based on half-truths albeit useful] which can only be resolved via philosophy and not Science and definitely no Social Science.

Quote:
No offense but Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist. Out of those few 'ist's I don't see the word Scientist. Also he also existed in the 1700's and I am much more into modern thinking than playing words games as exemplified in this sun rising example. I see no issues.

Or the claim of certainty about the sun rising tomorrow comes from my understanding/knowledge about our Solar System and our Sun.
If he limits why someone makes a certainty claim with what you wrote above then yes I totally disagree. Sure there are cases where those assertions hold true but not in all cases.
Btw, this is a Philosophical Forum, not a Science Forum.
From the content you posted in reference to Hume, it appears you are not well informed of Hume's Problem of Induction which created a turning point in the history of philosophy and our perception of knowledge.

I suggest you read up Hume's work on this and understand [not necessary agree] it thoroughly.
Philosophically I don't believe you will have any counter against Hume on this matter. The only philosopher who accepted the existence of the problem and reconciled issue to reality was Kant.

Last edited by Continuum; 06-12-2016 at 01:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,301 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
You are going to have to flesh this one out a bit more so I can understand what you are saying. Based on what consensus grounded on what average DNA? What do you mean average DNA?
Within the DNA structure of ALL human beings there are generic elements that make us human beings. There are some exceptional cases of abnormalities and deformations which can be ignored.
It is these generic elements that ground our consensus reality.

This is how we can obtain consensus within reality and Scientific knowledge, e.g. every human is subjected to gravity and understand the effects of gravity when it is pointed out.

Quote:
I think we are way past all the knowledge that Philosophy has to offer us with respect to Ethics and Morality. We have come a long way from the Dark Ages.

What we need is a world full of educated advanced people who are also wise and connected to nature in addition to being highly educated.
Philosophically you are still ignorant of the present state of morality within humanity.
If 100% is the ideal morality standards, then at present we are only 10% of the 100%.
It is was only not long ago [relatively] that all humans were like apes and beastly.
Therefore we need philosophy as a the conductor [as in a symphony] to co-ordinate and optimize all necessary knowledge and efforts to reach a stage of say 60% which will take a long time to achieve.

Quote:
Anything that you can think of, can have this double-sided-blade that can cut both ways. For all the bad you think science has done...don't forget that it has brought far more good then bad to the world. Human living conditions have drastically improved due to science. Human diseases that were once wiping out millions have been eradicated or are now easily curable with simple medicines. Just look at the vast amounts of knowledge about the Universe that we have discovered just in the past 25 years! It's incredible. Look at how we now understand so much more about the world we live in...all due to Scientific inquiry and discoveries.
Science and scientific knowledge is objective and neutral.
The double-sided-blade elements are generated by humans who are either good or evil.
All the consequences arising out of scientific knowledge should be traced to the good or evil impulses of humans beings whose interests are technological, political, social, economics or whatever

We need to differentiate between Science itself and Technology. They are two different things.
Quote:
You don't come across as a person who holds science in high esteem. Which is odd to me since you are not formally trained in science. It's makes no sense to me when I read the disdainful things you say about science. As if it's some dumb limited worthless body of knowledge that is inferior on all sides. If you don't hear that in your posts perhaps you need to read through them again.

Science gives us the knowledge about how the Universe works.
I have never condemned Scientific knowledge at all. Where?
According to my definition of Philosophy [see below] scientific knowledge is a critical necessity for Philosophy-proper, so why should I condemn Science.

What you don't like is probably where I stated Philosophy overrides Science which is the truth within reality. I cannot deny what is truth.
Quote:
Where in the quote below do you find me displaying a belief in 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? If you don't see the value of a world with more people who are scientifically literate vs. scientifically illiterate, then all I can say is take a good look around. Ignorance breeds what you see in the world today. Science opens minds to understanding how the Universe works. Investing in STEM is a good investment for society and economies. If you see that as an authoritative view then I say you are the one playing victim to your own created fears based on your disdain of science.
It is very obvious you are idolizing Science and scientific knowledge to the extent of condemning Philosophy [as merely Western Philosophy] down the drain.

Quote:
The love of wisdom. Descriptive philosophy's central question is What is the nature of reality? Normative Philosophy has two basic questions: What is good? What is bad? Political Philosophy: What functions should the state perform? Can the state justify itself? Critical Philosophy asks: What is true? How can we determine whether something we believe is true, and so constitutes knowledge, or is false, so constitutes error?
Point here is you have a very narrow view of Philosophy - love of wisdom - which is confine to Western Philosophy from the Greeks.
I view Philosophy as an universal evolutionary impulse that is innate in all human beings that cover all philosophies, i.e. Western, Eastern, and wherever it exists in whatever the forms.

From my understand of reality and humanity,
I define 'Philosophy' as;
Philosophy arise from an innate impulse of mental evolution toward continuous improvements using whatever necessary knowledge [including Science], wisdom and tools in optimizing the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom of humanity [the collective].
From my definition of Philosophy above, Science is its subset and thus Philosophy overrides Science.

Last edited by Continuum; 06-12-2016 at 01:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,825,988 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Where it matters there will always be a limit to Science. Since Philosophy-proper is innate to human beings philosophy-proper will always be there.
Then I suppose that Religion will always be there.

There is a limit to Philosophy as well as Religion. We are limited by our consciousness, our measuring devices, the "why" vs. "how" questions. Lawrence Krauss makes this point all the time. You can't answer the "why" when the "how" has not been fully understood.

We are limited because we are in a human form with limited abilities. Science is the best method we have for generating the nature of the Universe. Philosophy is also interested in the nature of the Universe, the the huge difference between these two is that Science relies on Empirical vs. a Metaphysical foundation for knowledge. This is the reason why Science divorced itself from Philosophy.

Roger Bacon envisaged that foundation as essentially empirical, whereas Descartes provides a metaphysical foundation for knowledge.

If there were any doubts about the direction in which scientific method would develop, they were set to rest by the success of Isaac Newton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I believe the social sciences are biting more than it can chew and some day the truth will prevails.
Here is one go at it; [snip...]
The problem I have with someone like Unger is that he is not a Scientist so his comments are coming from a position of pure biased opinion that has not been verified or tested. We get into trouble when Philosophizers spout their opinions without any testable evidence to back up their claims. Moral Philosophy has generated serious monstrous or failed movements throughout history. Socialism and Eugenics are just a few examples.

The Social Sciences are evolving and their evolution is what is making Philosophy obsolete. Science in general is making both Philosophy and Religion obsolete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
NW: That’s really interesting. So, you’re saying that the social sciences have moved away from the scientific model, in a sense, because a scientific model will deal with counterfactual situations – what would happen if I were to put this chemical into this particular test-*tube, at this heat; whereas, the social sciences have moved far more into the area of descriptive analysis.

RU: They have degenerated into pseudo-*science.
This is laughable at best. Until he can provide evidence of his claims, then this is just his opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
NW: That’s quite a strong claim. Do you want to give an example perhaps of a pseudoscientific move that’s been made within the social sciences?

RU: Well, let’s take the most important example – which is economics.

The first flaw in economics is that it’s a kind of logic; its theory is almost entirely empty of any causal or normative content. It’s a logic machine operating under certain presuppositions. And it gains power only when these assumptions about causality or about objectives are supplied to it from the outside. The result is that economics is either pure and impotent or potent and compromised.

The second flaw of economics is that it tends not only to identify rational maximising activity with the conception of a market but then will work momentously to identify the abstract conception of the market with a very particular set of economic institutions.
The third flaw is that the economics that emerged from the Marginal Revolution of the late 19th century is a theory of exchange or relative prices, almost entirely bereft from any theory of production.

And the fourth flaw could be understood by analogy to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In contemporary evolutionary theory, there are really two parts: there’s the part about competitive selection and then there’s the part of the diverse material through genetic recombination on which the mechanisms of competitive selection operate. Well, what we have in economics today is like half of Darwinism; we have the theory of the competitive selection but no view of the creation of the stuff on which the competitive selection operates.

Now, if you take these four flaws that I’ve just described, what they add up to is a pseudo-*‐science. And that pseudo-*‐science is powerfully enlisted in the service of apology rather than of explanation. Let’s rebel against it, get rid of it and transform it.[/indent]
He is missing a few big pieces of logic. The complexity of Economics is what lends itself to being partially pseud-science. If you put 5 Economists in a room they will all have varying ideas about the same subject. Same can be said if you put 5 Philosophers in a room. Philosophy is also a Pseudo-Science.

However the Research of Economics is no Pseudo-Science and follows the Scientific Method.

Here is a good good lecture from Professor Professor Yung Yang that describes how the Scientific Method is applied in Economic Research.
Department of Economics School of Social Sciences & Interdisciplinary Studies; California State University, Sacramento.

Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Research in Economics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note this silly listing of what is covered under Social Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlin...social_science
That listing include Law, Linguistic, and even Philosophy.
Can you point out what exactly is silly about the listings?

I think you have a fundamental confusion about the Social Sciences. The social sciences are academic disciplines concerned with the study of the social life of human groups and individuals including anthropology, economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology.

The social sciences consist of the scientific study of the human aspects of the world. Hence why they are called the Social Sciences.

I know that Philosophers are not happy with the fact that Science is making it obsolete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,825,988 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, I believe Medicine is not purely Science.
The medical community merely use Science as a tool to produce medical knowledge.
The medical community has its own specific Medical Framework and System, with its Hippocrates' Oath and other rules and principles.
Hippocrates's Oath is about upholding ethics...as we can see this Oath does not stand the ground of being adhered to in the Medical Profession. It's just a piece of paper.

Medicine is certainly a science put of course not solely a science, it's also an art.

Medicine: Science or Art?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
What I meant was every knowledge from whatever field must be conditioned and qualified to their respective specific Framework, System and Processes. It is the Framework that lend authority to the knowledge. Therefore all Scientific Knowledge must be qualified to the Scientific Framework [with its Scientific Methods and other processes].
Thus when any knowledge is recognized as Scientific, it is implied it has complied with all the necessary requirements of the Scientific Framework.
Which is the best method we have today for weeding out personal bias and generating the knowledge we have about the Universe. Otherwise you will just get Pseudo-Science without the Scientific Methods employed to generate knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I don't think you fully understood Hume's famous work.
I think I did understand it. I don't think you understood my response.

If you do not qualify your statement that would be a claim of absolute knowledge by itself.
If you say, scientifically, I know with 100% certainty that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, then there is no issue because you qualify it as "scientifically" thus compliance to the Scientific Framework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If you do not qualify then it cannot be absolute knowledge nor true from the philosophical and reality perspective.
You must have missed these qualified responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Or the claim of certainty about the sun rising tomorrow comes from my understanding/knowledge about our Solar System and our Sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
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
Btw, this is a Philosophical Forum, not a Science Forum.
You don't say? I will repeat. Yes I know that Philosophers are not happy with the fact that Science is making Philosophy obsolete, but it's just a fact. Nothing to get bent out of shape over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
From the content you posted in reference to Hume, it appears you are not well informed of Hume's Problem of Induction which created a turning point in the history of philosophy and our perception of knowledge.

I suggest you read up Hume's work on this and understand [not necessary agree] it thoroughly.
Philosophically I don't believe you will have any counter against Hume on this matter. The only philosopher who accepted the existence of the problem and reconciled issue to reality was Kant.
I am not interested in Hume's 1700's logic. I have better things to do with my time such as learning about all the new Scientific Discoveries. That is much more interesting to me than Hume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2016, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,037 posts, read 4,825,988 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Philosophically you are still ignorant of the present state of morality within humanity.
Exactly how am I ignorant of the present state of morality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If 100% is the ideal morality standards, then at present we are only 10% of the 100%. It is was only not long ago [relatively] that all humans were like apes and beastly.
We are still apes and we are still beastly. In fact I would say were are wore than beastly...animals don't behave as badly as humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore we need philosophy as a the conductor [as in a symphony] to co-ordinate and optimize all necessary knowledge and efforts to reach a stage of say 60% which will take a long time to achieve.
Long ago and far away Philosophy got us started now Science has taken over. Pseudo-Science is not going to increase morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Science and scientific knowledge is objective and neutral.
The double-sided-blade elements are generated by humans who are either good or evil.
All the consequences arising out of scientific knowledge should be traced to the good or evil impulses of humans beings whose interests are technological, political, social, economics or whatever.
Could not agree more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
We need to differentiate between Science itself and Technology. They are two different things.
Where in my quote do you see me talking about technology? Of course they are different things. Science is always pushing the envelope - looking for new knowledge. Technology (engineering) only does so when it needs to, to meet a market demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I have never condemned Scientific knowledge at all. Where?
According to my definition of Philosophy [see below] scientific knowledge is a critical necessity for Philosophy-proper, so why should I condemn Science.
LOL it's embedded throughout all of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
What you don't like is probably where I stated Philosophy overrides Science which is the truth within reality. I cannot deny what is truth.
Is this an absolute truth? It's not that I don't like it...I know it's pure rubbish. You sort of sound like those religious folks when you talk about Philosophy. They know that Science has put a huge dent in their camp and Philosophers are also upset with this fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is very obvious you are idolizing Science and scientific knowledge to the extent of condemning Philosophy [as merely Western Philosophy] down the drain.
I am hardly idolizing it as you are Philosophy. I respect and greatly appreciate Science for being the best method we have today in helping us know the nature of the Universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Point here is you have a very narrow view of Philosophy - love of wisdom - which is confine to Western Philosophy from the Greeks.
Do you really think that those 3 words are my views of Philosophy? You left out the rest of my quote...see below. Are you quote mining here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Descriptive philosophy's central question is What is the nature of reality? Normative Philosophy has two basic questions: What is good? What is bad? Political Philosophy: What functions should the state perform? Can the state justify itself? Critical Philosophy asks: What is true? How can we determine whether something we believe is true, and so constitutes knowledge, or is false, so constitutes error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I view Philosophy as an universal evolutionary impulse that is innate in all human beings that cover all philosophies, i.e. Western, Eastern, and wherever it exists in whatever the forms.
Love of wisdom is a narrow view? But universal evolutionary impulse is not? Can you define universal evolutionary impulse? Humans are innately curious about the Universe. Humans (not all), but many ponder our existence and our place in the Universe. Science has provided us the answers to many of those questions.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
From my understand of reality and humanity,
I define 'Philosophy' as;
Philosophy arise from an innate impulse of mental evolution toward continuous improvements using whatever necessary knowledge [including Science], wisdom and tools in optimizing the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom of humanity [the collective].
From my definition of Philosophy above, Science is its subset and thus Philosophy overrides Science.
You can thank Science for all the continuous improvements that have been given to us through scientific inquiry and discovery that humans enjoy today.

Your views on Philosophy are no different than what religious folks think about their religion.

Your views about Philosophy managing knowledge are just as frightening as religious views on controlling human beliefs.

Your views about controlling knowledge are illogical. You can't control knowledge, humans will steal, cheat, lie, kill and do whatever they have to in order to get their hands on controlled knowledge.

It sounds as if you are bitter that Philosophy has been marginalized and is on it's way to becoming obsolete by Science. This is simply basic conscious knowledge evolution..."survival of the fittest".
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