ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags philosophy , epistemology , religion

Reply
Old 17th May 2019, 11:34 PM   #41
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
You can divorce philosophy, science, and religion if you want, but they will unite again. Not because they are the same. They are different things but related in many ways. You can't talk about classical issues of theology or philosophy without a sufficient knowledge of science. But science alone cannot solve many classical questions of philosophy. And religion cannot be criticized without philosophy and science. Et cetera.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 01:16 AM   #42
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,947
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Not all the concepts that philosophy uses have been created by philosophers. Many times they are scientific or taken from ordinary language. What is philosophical is the way they are used.
The same for science.
Right and I should have made a note of that along with the link.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:33 AM   #43
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,122
Where shall we put Metaphysics? In Philosophy? Religion? Science? The Paranormal?

God obviously goes in religion, except when God is a philosophical construct.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:49 AM   #44
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
I have always thought it inappropriate for Religion and Philosophy to be lumped in together, but it has been that way round here for so long I got used to it.

I wouldn't like to see philosophy put in with science.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:51 AM   #45
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Where shall we put Metaphysics? In Philosophy? Religion? Science? The Paranormal?

God obviously goes in religion, except when God is a philosophical construct.
Aren't the New Atheists claiming that God is a scientific hypothesis? If so then maybe religion should go in with science.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 08:05 AM   #46
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,122
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Aren't the New Atheists claiming that God is a scientific hypothesis? If so then maybe religion should go in with science.
I'll ask Michio Kaku.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:50 AM   #47
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen View Post
Second, Philosophy of science, the study of the structures of our theoretical frameworks. Science is a set of tools, and without theoretical frameworks, we would have a box of tools but will know anything about how to use them, or their utility, and completely unable of asking the right questions.

Scientists do not need philosophers to tell them how do their job (however much philosophers might enjoy believing in, and writing about, their own self importance). In fact, in the properly rigorous core subjects of science (physics, chemistry, most of biology and most of maths), most scientists have no interest in, or any use for, academic philosophy at all ... if you look through all the tens of thousands of real (core) science research papers published each year with their obligatory lists of required references (hundreds of thousands of other papers referenced), out of all those hundreds of thousands of references you will hard pressed to find even one single reference acknowledging any help from or reliance upon any earlier stuff from any philosophers.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:54 AM   #48
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,787
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You can divorce philosophy, science, and religion if you want, but they will unite again. Not because they are the same. They are different things but related in many ways. You can't talk about classical issues of theology or philosophy without a sufficient knowledge of science. But science alone cannot solve many classical questions of philosophy. And religion cannot be criticized without philosophy and science. Et cetera.
Your point being?

Who cares about "classical questions of philosophy"?

religion can be criticised without philosophy and science.

All we have to do is ask for evidence of any supernatural agent controlling the universe.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:56 AM   #49
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,787
Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen View Post

Furthermore, philosophy was right there when dark ages start to become a thing of the past, pushing science out of the uterus. Science without philosophy is blind and religion is everything but philosophy!
What is your evidence for this?

I bet it's more philosophy and rhetoric, I bet it can go on for another few thousand years and achieve very little.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:50 PM   #50
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Scientists do not need philosophers to tell them how do their job (however much philosophers might enjoy believing in, and writing about, their own self importance). In fact, in the properly rigorous core subjects of science (physics, chemistry, most of biology and most of maths), most scientists have no interest in, or any use for, academic philosophy at all ... if you look through all the tens of thousands of real (core) science research papers published each year with their obligatory lists of required references (hundreds of thousands of other papers referenced), out of all those hundreds of thousands of references you will hard pressed to find even one single reference acknowledging any help from or reliance upon any earlier stuff from any philosophers.
No philosopher of science wants to tell scientists how to do their job. You are chasing a ghost.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:24 PM   #51
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post

Who cares about "classical questions of philosophy"?

religion can be criticised without philosophy and science.

All we have to do is ask for evidence of any supernatural agent controlling the universe.
If you read a Platonic dialogue, you will find many questions that humanity continues to discuss today. For example, about evidence and truth. If you don't care about questions about meaning, love, evil or death, which are the classic philosophical questions, you have a limited mind. Of course, you can live with a limited mind. A limited mind does not kill. It only makes certain things difficult.

Philosophical questions concern our day to day live. It is possible to give stereotyped answers. "Love is never saying sorry"; "Mother, there is only one", and so on. Or you feel you had to think about them more profoundly. This is philosophy.

Is pure rational knowledge possible? What is evidence? These are classical philosophical questions. I am glad you have a philosophical answer to them. I have some doubts about the problem of evidence. To have doubts is a classical philosophical position.

Asking evidence about gods is a good beginning. But I doubt the question is closed only with this. Probably the believer will continue with some counter-arguments against the criterion of evidence that you will need to counterattack. And this is philosophy.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:38 PM   #52
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If you read a Platonic dialogue, you will find many questions that humanity continues to discuss today. For example, about evidence and truth. If you don't care about questions about meaning, love, evil or death, which are the classic philosophical questions, you have a limited mind. Of course, you can live with a limited mind. A limited mind does not kill. It only makes certain things difficult.

Philosophical questions concern our day to day live. It is possible to give stereotyped answers. "Love is never saying sorry"; "Mother, there is only one", and so on. Or you feel you had to think about them more profoundly. This is philosophy.

Is pure rational knowledge possible? What is evidence? These are classical philosophical questions. I am glad you have a philosophical answer to them. I have some doubts about the problem of evidence. To have doubts is a classical philosophical position.

Asking evidence about gods is a good beginning. But I doubt the question is closed only with this. Probably the believer will continue with some counter-arguments against the criterion of evidence that you will need to counterattack. And this is philosophy.
Congratulations on hurling insults.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 02:24 AM   #53
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Congratulations on hurling insults.
I don't see any insult in my comment.
It may be my limited knowledge of English.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 03:07 AM   #54
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Scientists do not need philosophers to tell them how do their job (however much philosophers might enjoy believing in, and writing about, their own self importance). In fact, in the properly rigorous core subjects of science (physics, chemistry, most of biology and most of maths), most scientists have no interest in, or any use for, academic philosophy at all ... if you look through all the tens of thousands of real (core) science research papers published each year with their obligatory lists of required references (hundreds of thousands of other papers referenced), out of all those hundreds of thousands of references you will hard pressed to find even one single reference acknowledging any help from or reliance upon any earlier stuff from any philosophers.
For example Frances Arnold to Daniel Dennett: "I thanked you in my Nobel Prize lecture in December", or Sean Carroll's pairing with philosopher Charles Sebens in his paper about deriving the Born rule in Many-Worlds quantum physics are two examples I can think of off the top of my head of scientists engaging with the philosophy of science.

Massimo Pigliucci was a highly qualified and well-published biologist before he became a philosopher of science.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 03:48 AM   #55
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
For example Frances Arnold to Daniel Dennett: "I thanked you in my Nobel Prize lecture in December", or Sean Carroll's pairing with philosopher Charles Sebens in his paper about deriving the Born rule in Many-Worlds quantum physics are two examples I can think of off the top of my head of scientists engaging with the philosophy of science.

Massimo Pigliucci was a highly qualified and well-published biologist before he became a philosopher of science.
Dennett also referenced in Lenski et al "The evolutionary origin of complex features" in Nature.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 04:52 AM   #56
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Your point being?

Who cares about "classical questions of philosophy"?

religion can be criticised without philosophy and science.

All we have to do is ask for evidence of any supernatural agent controlling the universe.
How would one establish the premise and validity of such a question without philosophy and science?
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 06:12 AM   #57
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 708
So it appears philosophy is part and parcel of most thought process. Not just the big things in life but the small.

And even a barely educated person such as myself does it at times when logic and reasoning based on simple evidence alone isn't possible.

Even if we cannot put a name on it or have a clue who wrote about it in 23ad.

Sciences and religion draw from this process also but even to me it appears one benefits far more.

Religion likes fuzzy logic and ambiguous sources open to be interpreted by the wise man of the moment. It prevents lessor minds from undoing the power structure.

Sciences can start with a philosophical idea and then discard it later when better methods have proven or disproven the concept.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 01:59 AM   #58
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
For example Frances Arnold to Daniel Dennett: "I thanked you in my Nobel Prize lecture in December", or Sean Carroll's pairing with philosopher Charles Sebens in his paper about deriving the Born rule in Many-Worlds quantum physics are two examples I can think of off the top of my head of scientists engaging with the philosophy of science.

Massimo Pigliucci was a highly qualified and well-published biologist before he became a philosopher of science.

Your examples make it look as if you really do not appreciate what scientific research papers actually are, and/or what science research journals are.

Two of your examples are nothing to do with science research papers needing to acknowledge earlier work from philosophers, and the third one does not say that any new science being published by Carroll relied upon earlier discoveries from philosophers. That is -

- the fact that someone who won a Nobel prize (I have no idea who she is ... but I see from Wiki that she is a "Chemical Engineer", which is not actually core science research, but anyway ...) may have spoken to include thanks to Daniel Dennett, is not remotely the same as publishing a research paper in core science where the references acknowledge earlier essential work by philosophers. That example is not even a publication/paper at all. And the fact that Pigliucci may have studied and researched in biology before re-training in philosophy and writing & teaching about philosophy is again, not a science research paper with references that genuinely needed to acknowledge work from earlier philosophers.

I don't know what Carroll published in conjunction with any philosopher, but that sounds more like a paper describing some historical aspects of philosophical ideas that could later be seen as "scientific". But in any case, if we look at all the papers published by Carroll, I doubt that you will find many others with any need at all to reference earlier contributions from philosophers.

The point is, as you will certainly know if you have ever really looked at lots of science research journals, that whilst every paper has a list of references at the end (often a very long list), ie referencing earlier work that was essential to the research presented in that paper, you will rarely if ever find a genuine reference to any earlier actual real contributions from philosophy ... it's just not relevant to almost anything published as new discoveries or new explanations in core science research.

Except for papers that were specifically related to historical origins of early progress in science (where if you go back far enough you may well find mention of philosophy and philosophers), in the research papers that we we consider to be "modern" science (eg the last 100 years say), you will find few if any scientists needing to acknowledge any original contribution from philosophy. And just to clarify that - anyone working now (2019) in core science research, if they discover something worthy of publication (which itself is not easy ... research papers are not 2-a-penny), will rarely if ever need to include references to work published more than a few decades ago ... most of the references will be to other recent papers (ie within the last year or two) ... if they do reference any publications from philosophers, then it would almost always be no more than a historical mention (eg just a passing mention to say that, for example, the notion of "atoms" came originally from early Greco-Roman philosophers 2500 years ago).

The essential point is that scientists rarely if ever need to acknowledge any contribution from philosophers. And that is shown as a fact from the vast lists of millions of references in current/recent research papers, which include few if any genuine acknowledgeable to philosophy. Philosophy is just no longer relevant to science research (and in the distant past it was only relevant because early modern-era scientists such as Galileo and Newton etc. were at the time still regarded as philosophers as well as mathematicians/scientists).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 03:26 AM   #59
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... she is a "Chemical Engineer", which is not actually core science research,...
Right. I will find you her email address so you can explain to her what proper science is...
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 04:21 AM   #60
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,665
So, work for which someone is awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry is not core science.

Original work by a Caltech Physics Professor on how to justify the Born Rule in Everettian Quantum Mechanics is not core science.

A paper in Nature by a professor of microbial ecology and member of the National Academy of Science is not core science.

So what is core science then?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 21st May 2019 at 04:23 AM.
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 11:33 AM   #61
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So, work for which someone is awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry is not core science.

Original work by a Caltech Physics Professor on how to justify the Born Rule in Everettian Quantum Mechanics is not core science.

A paper in Nature by a professor of microbial ecology and member of the National Academy of Science is not core science.

So what is core science then?

OK, I had a look at that article by Carroll and Sebens (it appears to be an “article” from an in-house Cal Tech publication produced by Springer … as opposed to an actual research paper published in a mainstream science journal such as Phys Rev). Anyway, that has a publication date of 2104, however, there is a follow up with an actual paper published that is in a mainstream journal by Carroll and Sebens published 2 years later in 2016 … however that is published in a philosophical journal and not in a science research journal.

I could say a fair bit more about that particular article/paper (nothing critical or dismissive), but much simpler to understand is what happens at 45min 35sec in this YouTube discussion between Dan Dennett, Massimo Pigliucci (since you specifically mentioned those two philosophers) and Laurence Krauss -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8&t=2530s


That discussion is entirely on this issue of what relevance philosophy has today, and specifically what relevance it has in the light of what we now have as the method that we call "modern science". What happens at 45min 35sec is that Dennett says he actually agrees that there are not “other ways of knowing” ... i.e. that it is science, and not philosophy (or religion or any other subject) that is indeed the way in which we now decide what we can reasonably claim to “know”, but he says that “there are other ways of doing things, and some of those ways are really good or really important” … to which Krauss immediately agrees and asks Pigliucci if he also agrees, and where Pigliucci says he does also agree with that … Krauss then immediately says (I paraphrase him slightly for clarity here) “oh, well in that case we can all go home, because that's the end of the discussion/disagreement” …

… the point is (obviously); even the philosophers there are agreeing that there are not genuinely other ways of knowing that are different from science (personally I would have been more cautious than they are, and just said that it “seems as if it's probably true that there are not really other non-scientific ways of knowing”) … and that's what this entire argument is about -

- are there truly other un-scientific ways to know the actual facts/truth (if such facts & truth exist)? Are there some real actual existing things or events or processes for which science cannot even in principle provide accurate answers BUT where philosophy or religion or some other unscientific study can genuinely provide the correct explanations?

That's a discussion that frequently occurs on forums like this. And despite theists (and also many philosophy students, it seems) insisting that science cannot be the only such “way of knowing”, I've yet to see any evidence that any other method works better than science when we are talking about real existing objects, events, processes etc. (as distinct from mere imagination, ideas, thoughts, beliefs etc.).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:28 AM   #62
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
Since Dennett is quoted, it is important to know his position on knowledge. It is associated with Sellars' distinction between "manifest image" and "scientific image" of the world. The manifest image includes emotions, intentions, goals, moral values, perceptions, etc. It is not always previous or subordinate to the scientific image, but different or independent in many cases. Sellars' assertion is that in case of conflict the scientific image prevails. I agree.

Some forms of knowledge are possible within the manifest image. For example:
"I know I have more than €50 in my wallet. I don't need to see it".
"I know she would never do it. I will never believe that".
(They are based on informal perception and experience).
"The phrase is ill-formed". (Based on formal rules).

These are types of knowledge very common in normal life. They are not science, but we need them to do things. (Pragmatic knowledge).

Sellars says that these kinds of knowledge are necessary to know what man is. I agree.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:37 AM   #63
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
By the way, Dennett and Sellars are philosophers. They do philosophy and philosophy of science. These are they branches of knowledge.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 04:18 AM   #64
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
… the point is (obviously); even the philosophers there are agreeing that there are not genuinely other ways of knowing that are different from science (personally I would have been more cautious than they are, and just said that it “seems as if it's probably true that there are not really other non-scientific ways of knowing”) … and that's what this entire argument is about -
Even your more cautious version carries the kind of level of certainty as we have in much of what would generally be considered scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
- are there truly other un-scientific ways to know the actual facts/truth (if such facts & truth exist)? Are there some real actual existing things or events or processes for which science cannot even in principle provide accurate answers BUT where philosophy or religion or some other unscientific study can genuinely provide the correct explanations?

That's a discussion that frequently occurs on forums like this. And despite theists (and also many philosophy students, it seems) insisting that science cannot be the only such “way of knowing”, I've yet to see any evidence that any other method works better than science when we are talking about real existing objects, events, processes etc. (as distinct from mere imagination, ideas, thoughts, beliefs etc.).
Here there be dragons.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:55 PM   #65
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,998
No one denies that a supersonic plane is the fastest way to travel on Earth. But not to my neighbour's house.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 01:15 AM   #66
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
Even your more cautious version carries the kind of level of certainty as we have in much of what would generally be considered scientific knowledge.


Here there be dragons.

Well I've never said that I am certain about anything ... and many people here, even in this thread, know that very well from previous discussions. Most properly qualified scientists today, and certainly in theoretical physics, are also be unwilling to claim that we know anything as actual 100% "certainty".

So all that's being said, is that it seems from our present understanding of science (or from anything else), that science is probably the only reliable valid way of discovering what is likely to be true vs what is not likely to be true in this universe.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 11:20 PM   #67
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well I've never said that I am certain about anything ... and many people here, even in this thread, know that very well from previous discussions. Most properly qualified scientists today, and certainly in theoretical physics, are also be unwilling to claim that we know anything as actual 100% "certainty".
I'm the same way. Do you find it infuriates people too?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So all that's being said, is that it seems from our present understanding of science (or from anything else), that science is probably the only reliable valid way of discovering what is likely to be true vs what is not likely to be true in this universe.
The point was really that such a conclusion isn't actually reached by scientific methodology, but it sounds like it's being considered to be true with the same kind of confidence as if it were. Do you see that as something different from "knowing"?
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 07:56 PM   #68
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well I've never said that I am certain about anything ... and many people here, even in this thread, know that very well from previous discussions. Most properly qualified scientists today, and certainly in theoretical physics, are also be unwilling to claim that we know anything as actual 100% "certainty".

So all that's being said, is that it seems from our present understanding of science (or from anything else), that science is probably the only reliable valid way of discovering what is likely to be true vs what is not likely to be true in this universe.
Science isn't in the business of discovering truths, but finding best explanations and more accurate and useful models. Which is not to say there aren't 'scientific truths', but 'scientific truths' are agreed upon, time-stamped and have a limited shelf life. Science is a great hobby with mostly positive outcomes.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 08:27 PM   #69
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Is religion a philosophy? Or is it not?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 12:17 PM   #70
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
I'm the same way. Do you find it infuriates people too?



The point was really that such a conclusion isn't actually reached by scientific methodology, but it sounds like it's being considered to be true with the same kind of confidence as if it were. Do you see that as something different from "knowing"?

Sorry about the very slow reply (I tend to give up on most threads these days, and just treat any threads I'm actually interested in, as somewhere just in passing where I can state or describe my own overall/general opinion).

But I'm not sure what you were asking about in the above highlight - in the post that you were responding to you had highlighted the following words from me “ I've yet to see any evidence that any other method works better than science when*we are talking about real existing objects, events, processes etc. (as distinct from mere imagination, ideas, thoughts, beliefs etc.).

So if you mean that highlighted part, then I'm just saying that if we are just talking about “imagination, ideas, thoughts, beliefs etc.”, then those are not real existing material things that we can try to measure and detect as factual or truly existing in the same that we try to do for physically detectable objects and events. The chemical and physical process that occur in the brain/mind when we have various thoughts & ideas appear to be “real” enough (i.e. measurable chemical and electrical changes in cells, nerves, neurons etc.), but the articulated ideas and thoughts are (as far as we can tell) not real measurable tangible physically existing things (afaik).

Last edited by IanS; 28th May 2019 at 12:19 PM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 12:40 PM   #71
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,981
Argument for combining Philosophy with humor:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.

But since that joke came from Woody Allen, then we should also combine philosophy, humor, and trials and errors.
__________________
Doubt world tour locations:

Detroit, Mexico, Detroit, Mexico....
Repeat for all of 2017 except when on vacation.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.