I appear to have enough of a clue about it to make a stronger case here than you. That should be good enough.
“Conceptually proved”? You mean by those guys sitting around wondering if we really exist and whether we can really know anything? How bout the idea of god being a good, loving guy with a plan? Has that been “conceptually proved”?
Actually I think I’ve discovered a cause effect relationship here!
It goes like this…
The more clearly you defeat fred smith in an argument the more stridently he will come out banging his “you obviously have never studied philosophy” drum. The same could be true in regards to politics or economics as well I suspect.
In summation, I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically. I have stressed this all along.
Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up. Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?
You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own
I think you don’t understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don’t know what we don’t know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.
I think you don’t understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don’t know what we don’t know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.[quote]
Fred Smith says… I do not know how this fucking god damned Mac in Mexico works so this is all reversed. The quote should be for the previous person and not me but whatever… perhaps it believes that it is a scientist too and does not want to help me with my philosophical argument haha. The computer is playing god with me.
I think that you do not read very carefully. Again, no where have I said anything against science. What is the title of this particular thread? It is called epistemology right? Now, what does epistemology deal with? It deals with what knowledge we can have and how can attain that knowledge. Philosophers have dealt with this subject for the better part of two millenia. Science falls under empiricism generally. This is not a new subject, one that has not been dealt with before.
Again, if no one here has any grounding in basic philosophy this conversation is going to go nowhere and fast. No where have I said that science does not have a place. I am talking about how scientific theory cannot prove the very principles upon which it is based from a point of view of epistemology.
Clearly, there are very few people on this thread that know what that means. My mistake for attempting to open a conversation on the subject here. I should have known better. I promise that henceforth I will ask only what your favorite color is and what it tells about your political views. haha[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]I would like to ask you two questions.
Have you ever studied philosophy?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
In summation, [quote]
In summation of what? All you did was ask two questions.
Whatever.
OK so science collapses and with it the universe. Nothing is known. It’s all an illusion, excpet the God part of course, he is real “because” unlike the atoms that make up this universe, philosophers of a certain persuasion have conceptually proven the possibility. Does that about sum it up professor?
I didn’t give it this title. This thread was split from the global warming thread.
[quote]You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own
Perfect timing with that last statement. I will be off the air for a while and am relieved that you had nothing of relevance or interest to add lest I be tempted to make the effort to come back to post. There is a God and he just saved me from continued tedium. haha
After thorough search, I have determined that Hume, Heidegger, Nietzche and others all support my view that science cannot prove itself scientifically. You may have some better ground to stand on going with Kant because of his views on transcendental idealism but I have to reread the section to determine if this would include ALL concepts or just those of time and space. Admittedly, I find his writing a bit heavy going. Filthy Germans, even worse filthy East Prussians. That said, unfortunately, he is going to be just about the only one that would maintain that we can have any true knowledge of the concepts that would underpin scientific knowledge. The rest of the crew is dead set against it.
Just for fun, you could check out Jurgen Habermas as well since he is a fan of the Enlightenment and Reason and has attempted to preserve ways to maintain the traditions despite the onslaught of destructuralist and postmodern thinking. I, too, admire the accomplishments of the Enlightenment. In fact, my last name does in fact mean that very thing in Latin. Changed in 1147 apparently because of a fetish and fad for all things Latin then. Ironic isn’t it?
But there you are. You have two philosophers out of the rest that would lean toward a view that science in terms of epistemology can use concepts to prove true knowledge but even then I would say that with Habermas the overall view is one that recognizes the limitations of such knowledge while advocating the spirit of the Enlightenment and again for Kant, I am rereading and rereading but I am having a hard time determining whether his views on transcendental idealism would enable such concepts to be used.
One philosopher that I have certainly found great affinity with is Emmanuel Levinas. Check that one out as well. Let me see if I can get the links to make this easier for you… I know that hard word is anathema to you. haha
Science has no need to prove itself scientifically because that is not it’s concern. It’s concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations. Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not. I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foriegn that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.
[quote]
[color=red]Science has no need to prove itself scientifically because that is not it’s concern.[/[/color]
quote]
I would love to have this preserved as one of the most incredible things that I have ever read on this forum.
This is incredible. What are you saying? I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must “freeze” things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? Again, I am not in any way criticizing science or its accomplishments. In fact, I am a firm believer in the development of new technology especially regarding global warming, er climate change, er alternating weather patterns. There, you seem to be the skeptic. Ironic isn’t it?
I am curious as to why you would hope not… Isn’t science and technological achievement your “god?”
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
You do realize of course that Hume, Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, Levinas, et al are absolute beginning blocks to the study of philosophy including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. You did realize that didn’t you?
Now, I would like to make my final point now that you seem to have conceded finally that science cannot prove itself scientically. Now, let’s go back to our original discussion regarding Intelligent Design (only with my preference not for the political theory but intelligent design as in small caps). I have “faith” in something Godlike which I prefer to call the Ultimate Formula lest it raise your discrimination and prejudice against traditional religion. You now admit that you are putting your “faith” in science. You do realize now that we are on equal planes at least philosophically. Now, pondering that I want you to admit to yourself that highly intelligent people may examine these issues and come to different conclusions than you. I have never told you that it was ridiculous to believe in or put your faith in science but I do not believe that the opposite has been true. And I believe that my faith gives me strength in terms of ethical standards, morality and the confidence and security that comes from believing that there is a purpose to our existence. Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science. And to me, ultimately, I may appreciate the technological benefits that science and new discoveries can deliver, but I would not want to live my life with science as the ultimate arbiter in deciding how I live my life. Now, do you understand where someone like me is coming from? Again, I am not condemning science but I do want you to understand that religious people such as myself whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or other have wrestled with these issues in a multitude of ways for millenia. I just want you to accept this and perhaps view those of “Belief” in a Higher Intelligence with a bit less smug, self-satisfied superiority in full recognition of the time and effort that has been put into studying and pondering these issues. Fair? Point made? Can you meet me half way on this?
Correct. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. Niether can it really explain why objects have mass. No one that truly understand science would make such a claim. Science would only say, “There is a doubt that there is a ‘higher intelligence’”.
I am not making that claim but my impression is that Bob is.
I think that you are getting off the track here. My discussion with Bob centers around the fact that metaphysically, epistemologically and ontologically, science cannot even prove the concepts that underpin its knowledge and therefore is unable to provide any true knowledge in this area.
I think that I do, but I am not sure that you understand this debate. Reread this thread in its entirety if you don’t mind.
I have repeatedly and in just about every post stressed that I have nothing against science and yet you too have come along with the statement that I do not really understand science so I am finding that often the best technique when discussing issues with people (and many do not read very carefully) is to repeat, repeat and repeat until the point is made.
I reiterate:
I have nothing against science. I am all for science and technology.
Epistemologically, ontologically and metaphysically, science cannot prove scientifically the very concepts that underpin in.
This is relevant since we are having a discussion on intelligent design.
In this context, this inability to rest on sure foundations when it comes to delivering true knowledge is absolutely crucial and central to the debate.
Given that this is the case, I merely wish to point out that those who put their faith in science have literally put their faith in science.
Given that I have never criticized those who put their faith in science, I am merely requesting that given these are unknowables, that those who have put their faith in science realize that highly intelligent people have chosen to put their faith in other areas and that they should be respected for doing so especially if they can adequately back up the reasons why they have chosen to do so. Anyone who wants to put their faith in science metaphysically, ontologically or epistemologically is more than free to do so though I personally would not be comfortable doing so. Again, this is not a debate about the practical and every-day applications of science, I am speaking epistemologically, ontologicaly and metaphysically.
Yes. I hear you - but you’re still not understanding science.
You seem to think that science is about certain ideas or theories. Science is not. At its very base it is about an unending questioning an doubting it is more than just let say… verficationism. This is different epistemologically, ontologically and metaphysically from what you are talking about - it is not faith - it is lack of faith that makes science what it is.
[quote=“fred smith”] I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must “freeze” things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? [quote]
I can’t pick myself up either but that doesn’t mean that I don’t exist. It is the scientific view of, lets call it reality, that has given us an understanding of the fact that what might appear to us as solid objects are in fact just swirling massses of atoms with a thing for each other. It is science that allows us to understand that perception is a biological event involving both the observer and the thing observed and that this relationship btwn the two is in fact yet another reality distinct from either considered in isolation. All we can do is accept these fundamental facts and base our lives on the fact that, from a certain perspective, things can be said to exist and cause effect relationships also exist.
Think of it this way…
The only faith I have is that my perceptions “are” a reality, despite, for example, whether or not I am hallucinating. Perhaps you know the halo story. The halo was true “as a hallucination”. Other things take on a more concrete aspect when other people, by means of this wonderful set of symbols we call “language” confirm with one another that those things exist, at least temporarily. The Great Wall of China might be a good example. We can look at it, talk about it, measure it, take pictures of it etc. All of these things lead to the conclusion that the great wall “actually” exists, now, as a unique combination of atoms. In this, I have faith, if you choose to call it that. Having faith in a good and loving god is an entirley different issue however because unlike the great wall you can’t look at it, talk about it, measure it or take pictures of it.
Where did I ever say that? I believe the technology exists now. What I don’t believe exists is the will to use those technologies, and for that I blame the oil companies, automobile manufacturers, city planners, advertisers, the apathetic public, and politicians. Everybody basically.
No. Science is science. I don’t believe in god.
What in the world is this supposed to mean?[/quote]
It means that through a scientific study of human motivations and perceptions it is more likely that science will prove some particular philosophy wrong than that philosophy will prove science wrong. I don’t think philosophy
can “prove” anything.
They don’t seem to help you much. Basically all you do is repeat their names like some cabalic incantation and expect attitudes to change.
There is no differene btwn large cap and small cap intelligent design.
I admitted no such thing. I said that nobody had an answer to the REALLY big questions. Not me, not you and not some long dead philosophers.
No. I am still fairly certain that I am smarter than you.
What you don’t understand is that the “purpose” of life is the promotion of happiness and the avoidance of suffering. Given our social nature this is best accomplished in harmony with others, and harmony is best achieved when certain, at times quite flexible, ethical codes are followed. I know this is true because I have observed it to be true. Happiness requires no justification beyond this.
No. You seem unwilling to simply accept that nature is something intrinsically worthwhile and that its protection should be our most pressing goal, and I think that unwilligness is born of a belief in something “behind” nature, something greater than nature. It is an unscientific and extremely dangerous position to take.
Nope. For too long people have had their heads pickled by religious nonsense that frequently goads them into the belief that they have some sort of divine insight that informs their decisions. Bush is a great example. Not academically curious I think is how he was described in college. Big boozer after that. Suddenly he hits 40 and has an epiphany of sorts which was “forgiven” by Billy Graham and the next thing we know Iraq has been invaded. If anything is clear about that situation it is that Bush just didn’t know what sort of can of worms he was getting into. He didn’t know. There are a lot of things people don’t know and therefore should show more restraint in acting upon. Religion encourages just the opposite and has done so for centuries.
You are right but only up to a point. The fact is that science assumes (puts its faith in?) certain concepts and “assumptions” that make it possible to put forward a theory and “prove” it. That works in our day-to-day world and delivers a great many benefits BUT science has never “scientifically proven” that those concepts exist or that those underlying assumptions can be proven. That is my point.
I sense that you keep wanting to drag this down to a discussion of scientific experimentation while avoiding the epistemological side but if you do so then what really comes of this debate on intelligent design? You are granting a certain sort of privilege to science to remain above the fray and why should you be allowed to do so? What science may or may not claim to be able to do or not be able to do is beside the point here. The point is that for many detractors of those who believe in organized religions, science reigns supreme (including metaphysically). Essentially, I may be misinterpreting Bob’s responses since quite honestly, I can make neither head nor tail of them, but isn’t he suggesting in a sort of “commonsense” approach to Being, Reality and Knowledge? Isn’t he sort of suggesting that it is all obvious and that we see is what we get and anyone who does not would be a fool?
No, I repeat their names because they stand for specific views, having outlined specific positions regarding philosopy, including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. I am sorry that this does not mean anything to you but then again, I get it that you have not studied philosophy before, that is why I am attempting to bring my argument down a bit to explain the basic concepts to you rather than assuming that you already know them. Anyway, your flippancy is amusing but it does not cover the lack of knowledge that you have on this subject. Okay, you are the “commonsense” kind of guy who does not have any time with mumbo jumbo. Just give you the facts right? Okay. I get that and I think that we can leave this discussion at that.
If you don’t mind, I wouldn’t mind continuing the discussion with Elequa for a bit longer to see where it goes. Perhaps, it may be more fruitful?
No, I repeat their names because they stand for specific views, having outlined specific positions regarding philosopy, including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. I am sorry that this does not mean anything to you but then again, I get it that you have not studied philosophy before, that is why I am attempting to bring my argument down a bit to explain the basic concepts to you rather than assuming that you already know them. Anyway, your flippancy is amusing but it does not cover the lack of knowledge that you have on this subject. Okay, you are the “commonsense” kind of guy who does not have any time with mumbo jumbo. Just give you the facts right? Okay. I get that and I think that we can leave this discussion at that.
If you don’t mind, I wouldn’t mind continuing the discussion with Elequa for a bit longer to see where it goes. Perhaps, it may be more fruitful?[/quote]
Now Fred seriously, is that any way to lose yet another debate?
My position makes more sense any way you slice it.
I exist. I have “faith” in that. You exist. I have faith in that too. External reality exists. More faith. It is possible for both of us to observe an aspect of that reality and to conceptualize our peceptions in the form of language and to transmit those concepts, with greater and lesser degrees of accuracy, to each other. You can go and check whether or not my conception of the Great Wall as being one long son of a bitch conforms to reality or not. You can even question the idea of “long” and we will have to agree finally that long is a relative concept. In the end we will agree that the Great Wall is a long son of a bitch relative to the fence around my mother’s house and we will have communicated succesfully, unless of course you decide to question the meaning of “son of a bitch” and I will then be required to point out that some language is intended to impart a certain attitude rather than a specific meaning. In the end, for clarity, we might agree that for the purposes of this discussion “The Geat Wall of China is long relative to my mother’s fence,” is perhaps a better choice of words and we may both have faith that an act of communication has occured via a symbolic system regarding some aspect of external reality.
Or then again perhaps none of this is actually “faith” so much as “belief” based on experience. Faith is something you believe despite having no such experience to back you up.
Really, if you can actually find any kind of mistake in this logic tell us what it is. Otherwise we’ll assume you are hiding behind a few big words and a few famous names.
