|
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. |
![]() |
#361 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#362 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#363 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#364 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#365 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#366 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#367 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#368 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#369 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#370 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#371 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#372 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#373 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#374 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#375 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#376 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
I give up, the word game has become very boring. I'm off to play non-logical fiddle at a local jam session, providing that I exist, of course. All the best, folks.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#377 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#378 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away.
"Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon." "Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query." "Very good sir, but please be aware there are women and small children about." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#379 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#380 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#381 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#382 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
Ah, you're both back.
(I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable') Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room. You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room. That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it. In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#383 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#384 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
Perhaps I should try the new and innovative approach of asking you clarifying questions about your position?
(Seriously, what do you want from me? You disapprove of me making assumptions, and you disapprove of me asking questions. In the circumstance when I don't know exactly what you mean, how can I continue the discussion without doing either one of those things?) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#385 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#386 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
Yes, that's what I meant. You don't need to understand philosophy to use science.
We got to this point in the discussion from Merton's post earlier: -which provides the quandaries relevant to this subject. So, the discussion has gone: Merton: Here are some quandaries that need answering before we can do science. dafydd: The inventors of the transistor didn't consider those quandaries. Twiler: They wouldn't need to solve them themselves. dafydd: There aren't any quandaries that need answering to invent the transistor. EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#387 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#388 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#389 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known.
''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know'' |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#390 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#391 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#392 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
Repeated with emphasis: They (the meanings of evidence and knowledge) are (widely known) now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.
So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science? Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#393 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 412
|
Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#394 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
|
Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.
|
__________________
Google search help |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#395 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#396 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#397 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#398 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
I don't hate philosophy. I notice that nobody has answered my question about which philosophical quandaries were solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor. I've been told that these quandaries exist but I have no inkling as to the nature of these quandaries, and I've only received vague answers, in the true spirit of philosophy.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#399 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 412
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#400 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I don't know enough about the invention of the transistor to have a good answer, but I want to guess anyhow.
Here's the quandary I have in mind: The meaning of i in the calculations. (Not the meaning of "I", although that would be cool, but the meaning of complex numbers in a real world application.) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|