Philosophy vs Science
Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; any type of truths that can be drawn from the natural world. And these truths can be split into many areas, called sciences.
A science (original meaning) is the search for truth in a specific area of study.
Here is a list of sciences with a brief description:
- Physics - the science of things in space and time
- Biology - the science of living organisms
- Medicine - the science of treatment of disease
- Mathematics - the science of logic of numbers
- Logic - the science of necessary outcomes
- Metaphysics - the science of reality
- Epistemology - the science of validity of knowledge
- Ethics - the science of right conduct
In the pre-modern period, all these would have fallen under the same umbrella of Philosophy. Then at the start of the modern period (say around the 1600s) it was decided to split the sciences into 2 categories:
- The empirical sciences, which we commonly just call Science (modern meaning)
- The rational sciences, which we commonly just call Philosophy (modern meaning)
The Empirical Sciences start with observations of the natural world, and end with conclusions that are empirically verifiable, that is to say, observable.
For example: Say we enquire on whether the earth is flat or round. Our perception of its shape from the ground can be explained by either hypothesis. Sure, we may be able to deduce the shape using geometry alone, but we would need to defend prior assumptions such as the distance of the sun, and so on. Ultimately though, we can verify our hypothesis empirically, by taking a rocket into space and looking out the window. Therefore this topic falls under the empirical sciences.
The Rational Sciences also start with observations of the natural world, (every claim must be built from something), but they end with conclusions that are not empirically verifiable. Now they are verifiable (as in defendable), but using reason alone.
For example: We observe that everything eventually dies, even the stars. This prompts us to ask if there is nothing in reality that is eternal. And as we cannot observe things forever, we are not able to verify this empirically. But logically, if nothing is eternal, then this very statement cannot be eternally true; which is a self-contradiction. So there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable. And this conclusion is verified (or defended) by reason alone.
And so Physics, Biology, and Medicine, fit under the category of empirical sciences, because their topics are empirically verifiable. Where as Mathematics, Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics fit under the category of rational sciences. Here is why:
- Mathematics and Logic - because these are exact sciences whose conclusions are known with certainty without the need for empirical verification. For instance, we have never observed unicorns, but we guarantee that 2 unicorns and another 2 unicorns results in 4 unicorns.
- Metaphysics - because even the metaphysical claim: everything that is real is observable is not itself observable.
- Epistemology - because the science that comes up with methods of validation, cannot itself be validated by its own methods.
- Ethics - because while we can observe how people do behave, we cannot observe how they should behave.
Lets clear up one common misconception: The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences. For one thing, as they deal with separate areas of study, they are not in competition. But whats more, the common method used in all empirical sciences, called the Scientific Method, is founded on the rational sciences, and so depends on them to be valid. Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences.
Both types of science are here to stay, and both are valuable in our search for truth.
Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science?
Also, feedback on the video is welcome :blush:
Comments (153)
Just a question: is metaphysics really "the science of reality"? I think it would be study of what is outside our objective experience, thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. Not something that we can experiment with. Hence the word meta in front of physics.
Many people think of science as something where you can apply the scientific method, basically something that is experimental.
Hence the difference what you mean by emprical and rational sciences ought to be discussed as many understand the scientific method to be empirical.
Anyway, hope this comment improves your thoughts.
Philosophy seeks to unlearn self-immiserating habits (e.g. illusions of knowing) through reflective inquiries (re: formal, natural & historical sciences) and reflective practices (re: arts, trades, lived experience).
Of course, YMMV. :up:
You've laid your argument clearly and the way you look at things makes sense. I think, though, you make it seem easier than it is. I'm a big fan of RG Collingwood, especially his "Essay on Metaphysics." He says that metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. As such, they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. Collingwood doesn't say so, but to me, epistemology is the same.
What it comes down to for me is that what you call rational sciences are founded on human value. Preferences. Usefulness. On the other hand, what you call empirical sciences can pretend they aren't permeated by human value because they have metaphysics and epistemology to take the rap for them. If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective.
Already on the wrong track. Philosophys original meaning is hardly the search for truth and certainly not the kind of truth we talk about these days. This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see as a false premise.
I would not distinguish between the empirical sciences and the rational sciences, however. For insofar as empirical inquiry is taken to be telling us something about reality, it must be thought that we have normative reason - justifying reason - to believe that our sensations are 'of' a world.
So there is no way of avoiding having to make an appeal to reason. The view, held by so many these days, that empirical investigation is our ultimate source of insight into reality, is not a view that is empirically verifiable and so undermines itself. That is, it is demonstrably false. To avoid incoherence the wannabe empiricist must simply insist that it is a self-evident truth of reason that, aside from that one insight from reason, all other information about reality comes via our sensations. And that view, though not incoherent, seems ad hoc. But is, importantly a form of rationalism.
Those who reject rationalism are just announcing that they cannot defend their view (whatever it may be). They can merely state it, but if asked to provide reason to think it is true, they will refuse.
Agreed. :up: :fire:
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Well, not really. Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness.
All human activities are done in order to attain something that is good. We dont do something because we think it will be bad for us. In addition, most of these activities are not the main objective, but rather a means to a higher end. Consequently, the activity that is an end in itself, writes the prolific philosopher, is the highest good, and that good is happiness. We aim at happiness for its own sake, not because it will achieve something else. Happiness, therefore, is our greatest mission. - Aristotle, The Goal of Happiness: A summary of Nicomachean Ethics
Eudaimonia?
:up: :smile:
Something to what you say from an etymology and historical perspective, but lets not consider etymology and tradition to be the final authority on what a term means.
Philosophy means love for 'sophia', which we translate as 'wisdom'. But wisdom has a seperate etymology than sophia. No two words in different languages have precisely the exact same meaning and usage.
At any rate, I should think a chief characteristic of the love of wisdom is the search for truth. So I wouldn't say the OP is necessarily "wrong", in spirit, even if wrong somewhat according to the letter.
'Natural' is the can of worms I have some issue with.
Edit: However the OP was specifically talking about the original meaning of the word, so you're right.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
So, that means, yipee!, to be a philosopher all you havta do is love wisdom (Sophia); you don't actually have to possess Sophia (virgin love à la Laila & Majnun).
I would say +.
Eudomonia + wisdom = beautitudo!
Socrates, the prime example, the lover of wisdom. but in possession of none. Remember though, the relationship between "love" and desire and want, especially for the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek concept of "love" is well drawn out in Plato's "The Symposium". They were not in possession of the Christianized concept of "love" at that time.
Interesting combo!
I see!
True, but in this case I think its relevant only because original was used. I think theres a lot more to be said about it. As many know, I like what Heidegger says about the Greeks especially regarding aletheia (truth), so this particularly stands out to me.
Perhaps this isn't the correct original meaning of "philosophy," but I don't think that undermines the rest of your argument.
Quoting ssu
Yes - that's what I meant in shorthand: the science of fundamentals of reality.
Quoting ssu
This is indeed the modern meaning of "science", i.e. 17th century and onwards. But the word was used before in a broader sense. E.g. Aristotle used it as any topic that pertains to truth.
Science, being empirical, must be testable.
Philosophy: I also agree with the habit aspect. Wisdom (the "sophy" part of philosophy) is not just the right beliefs but also the right behaviour that follows.
Quoting T Clark
Yes - I think this is similar to what we call axioms or first principles. Metaphysics is sometimes called "first philosophy".
Quoting T Clark
Indeed, first principles are the foundation for all our knowledge, including science; and by definition, they cannot be defended. However, by mere common sense, are they not obviously true? At the end of the day, planes fly.
Are you saying that metaphysical principles are "obviously true?" If so, I disagree. As I noted, for Collingwood and me, metaphysics is not true or false. Or are you saying that scientific results are obviously true? That gets us into the old "what is truth" discussion, at least one of which is already open on the front page of the forum.
Philosophy means "love of wisdom", and wisdom means "conforming our beliefs to reality (i.e. true beliefs) and our behaviour to reality (i.e. right behaviour)".
As a former Christian, I must say that your post is quite logical, and well-presented. And I agree that "The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences". I also accept that " there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable". Moreover, I concur that "Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences". Hence, it must be accepted on faith in human senses, and their artificial extensions. Yet, Logic (Reason) is a sort of sixth sense, that deals with subjective ideas, not objective things.
I can even agree that "Metaphysics - the science of reality" --- but with the proviso, that it's a "science" in the general sense of "a way of knowing". But, since the 17th century, Empiricism has arrogated the term "science" to its sense-experience experiments. Therefore, rational Metaphysics has been relegated to feckless Philosophy, with its debatable logical inferences. Ironically, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who used rational-thought-experiments to determine the unseen forces and mathematical structures of reality -- only later confirmed by empirical methods.
However, while most religions have rational philosophical/theological traditions, their popularity is not based on logic, but due to emotional appeals, prejudices & preferences. Which is why they tend to eventually break-down into passionately defended sects, with only a veneer of dispassionate logic. Even a calm rational philosophy like Buddhism, has it's zealous religious sects. Likewise, Scientism is a sect of Science, that is directly opposed to all hypothetical belief systems. Hopefully though, we can all get-along under the broad umbrella of Philosophy, with its dispassionate love of both empirical and theoretical truths. :cool:
Theoretical : considered, contemplative, speculative ; as contrasted to practical, pragmatic, empiricial
:up: :100:
It's really simple. The archaic mantra "love of wisdom", when defining philosophy, should receive a more rigorous scrutiny.
Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, I agree with that. We all seek what we believe to be good; and in order to find what is truly good, we must seek what is true. Philosophy is the search for truth, and this search is for the end of the true good.
Admittedly, it is not certain because everything I ever observe could be a dream, but it is very reasonable. At the end of the day, we all behave as though what we observe is real.
I dont think there is a goal, really. But if youre interested in a more in depth discussion on what philosophy is, Ill point you to the link below rather than derail your thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8313/what-is-philosophy/p1
In a nutshell, I think philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions the question of all questions grounded in What is being?
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
Im not sure this is what the Greeks meant. And in any case, the entire idea of beliefs conforming to reality is much more modern than you may realize. The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. The subject/object, mind/body distinction itself only begins in earnest with Descartes not the Greeks. So if anything, your definition seems rather anachronistic.
Quoting L'éléphant
Yep. Truth means correspondance to reality. Thus your definition is very similar.
On another note, I confirm that since your name corresponds to your profile pic, you are in fact positing what is real. :up:
I'll add some details to my simple reply. Philosophy to me has always been about finding definitions that fit successfully within the world. What is "good"? What is "knowledge"? Such questions require philosophers to construct solutions that are also of the world. Successful philosophy becomes science. Failed philosophy is still in the process.
On the same token, science sometimes discovers things which have no definition. And thus philosophy is needed once again.
Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thoughts likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind.
It may be traced to Aristotle, but thats not saying much nearly everything has been traced to him and Plato.
Regardless, theres simply too much to say about the idea of truth. By Plato and Aristotle, it had changed as had phusis.
Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. I wonder how they engineered ships back then?
"The entire idea" ???
Quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"In the Vedas and later sutras, the meaning of the word satya (????) evolves into an ethical concept about truthfulness and is considered an important virtue. It means being true and consistent with reality in one's thought, speech, and action."
(The Vedas date back to 6000 BC)
That's a nice analogy that sums it up!
(I'll leave this thread now, I feel I am getting off topic)
Strange that you'd want to pick a fight with me out of the blue because you dislike something I wrote to someone else. Oh well.
(1) I never once said that.
(2) The exact SEP quote was already given and responded to.
(3) The Vedic concept of truth, and reality, is very different from the Western conception.
Regardless, quoting Wikipedia or SEP is fine, but doesnt negate that a word like truth in modern usage is not what was meant by the Greeks. The word in Greek is aletheia and it meant something uncovered or revealed or, as Heidegger puts it, unconcealment. The idea that philosophy is the search for truth, with truth taken to mean the correspondence of belief with fact, is simply incorrect. This is anachronistic, and painting the picture of the Greeks as "primitive scientists." But if you're convinced by it, you're welcome.
This is what I'm trying to say. When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. In Ethics, the examination is whether morality is objective or subjective (we have morality as a matter of convenience or cooperation, for example). If objective, it exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it.
Folks, the ontology is the same for all inquiries of philosophy -- matter, objective reality, morality, space and time.
Perhaps. But how can we sort-out which of the many "true" religions is the "right religion" for me? In forum discussions, I've noted that Muslims (Islamists) make some quite rational & reasonable arguments for certain beliefs, such as the existence of an abstract (non-anthro-morphic) G*D. But in the final analysis (premises), they will insist that Muhammad was the last true prophet, that the Koran is the true word of G*D, and that Islam is the only "true" religion. By implication, your religion is false.
Unfortunately, reasoning is only as good as its premises. And, religious premises are seldom empirical or verifiable. Hence, as tolerant philosophers, we argue politely for our "truths", yet when all is said & done, we agree to disagree. :smile:
Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another.
Belief Bias :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/05/26/emotions-overruling-logic-how-belief-bias-alters-your-decisions/?sh=22bc3e9f7c56
10 Reasons Why Islam is the True Religion :
So to prove that veracity of Islam rather than showing people subjective miracles, instead I am presenting 10 proofs/evidence found in Islam for why Islam is the true religion.
https://themuslimscomic.com/2020/12/13/10-reasons-why-islam-is-the-true-religion/
Which, if any, of the world's 10,000 religions is the true one? :
https://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm
"A great many people think they are thinking [reasoning] when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ___William James
Indeed. Reason has long been a part of Islam and Christianity. Look at the work of apologist William Lane Craig - Christianity is a religion of reason - it's just that they're the wrong reasons... :wink:
Quoting Gnomon
Just an aside - plenty of Christians I know and grew up with do not think the New Testament is the inerrant word of god and that much in it is wrong or myth. It's more that they feel (faith?) it is true, above and beyond the old books.
Quoting L'éléphant
Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism?
Which view? I gave two examples.
We can say it's objective because "goodness" is something that can be achieved, according to virtue ethics. And we can say it's platonistic because Plato was one of the advocates of virtue. But it couldn't come from an idealistic point of view because one of the qualities of goodness is that it benefits others around us. There's the others to whom we dedicate our actions.
Good explanation, indeed. This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning."
So they always start with a (false?) premise that God does exist and then, whatever it goes successively.
It's not platonic realism. The platonic view has a very specific definition of "truth", which as you have already mentioned, is a form. Virtue ethics is practical ethics. It's within the realm of humans. Objective morality proponents aren't talking about platonic realism.
I think this might be worth mentioning in your video, that you are using the broader meaning. It helps to avoid unnecessary criticism.
Agreed. Since values drive our behaviours, then any values that exist objectively will dictate how we should behave.
False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness.
Quoting javi2541997
What you describe here is Theology: the search for conclusions under the starting point of some divine revelations.
A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this).
"Do this in rememberance of Me."
~Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24
:point: Remember Jesus by living like Jesus (i.e. @every moment "WWJD?" :halo:)
I have always interpreted "do this ..." as Jesus' philosophy teaching by' example 'a way of living and dying and living again.' :fire:
However, a dozen years of Catholic school education and bible study (along with a decade (second to twelth grades) of altarboy service) and I'd never observed a single "christian" who'd come close to living as Jesus had lived. I'd realized before I'd graduated from my Jesuit-run high school that Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" was probably right. And then early in my university career, I'd recognized a Truth I hadn't consciously known that I had known all along:
[quote=The Antichrist, aphorism 39 ]The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.[/quote]
"Christian philosophy" too, it seems, had died on that cross with the first and last Christian. :eyes:
NB: Some years later I'd come across Rabbi Hillel the Elder's distillation of Torah (which seems to have been the seed of Jesus' purported "Kingdom ministry")
The ethical Jewish roots of Jesus' teachings were subsequently lost or buried by millennia of Christian theologians, their proselytizing merchants and the faithful/gullible. Read (e.g.) Buber, Heschel, Levinas. :fire:
:100: :clap:
Law:
Philosophy would aim to understand the spirit or context of the law.
Science would stop at a literal technical interpretation of the law.
Analysing a story:
Not something science can do. It can only examine the rules of grammar, sentence structure, word definitions and so on.
Edit: I guess it could analyse how technically realistic the parts of the story are which reference scientific matters.
I too, was once "hopeful & naive". By the time I graduated from high school, I had doubts about my own fundamentalist ("back to the bible") Christian religion. Around that time, my older brother came back from California, with enthusiasm for his new-found religion. It was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), headed by radio & TV preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. His writings provided reasonable-sounding answers to some of my own concerns. And his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, was even more charismatic & persuasive on TV. Their "heretical" departures from the Catholic heritage were justified from the perspective that the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, and not to be dismissed as merely a temporary Law for errant Jews.
Some of those radical unorthodoxies made sense to me, on a rational basis. For instance, I could never find any scriptural evidence for changing the clearly commanded seventh day Sabbath to the indirectly inferred first day Sunday, as the "Lord's Day" for Christians. We seemed to have inherited that Catholic tradition, based originally on papal canonical councils, and on some questionable biblical exegesis. Anyway, I observed the WWCG from a distance, and even visited their campus in California. But H.W. Armstrong made some bold prophesies about "signs of the last days". Although he was in his eighties, he emphatically asserted that he knew he would still be alive when Jesus returned in triumph. He lived well into his nineties, but eventually died, and I saw no sign of The Second Coming (forty years ago). Therefore, I took that absence of evidence as empirical demonstration of a false prophecy. I also concluded from other evidences that the WWCG was a personality cult. And it soon fell apart upon the death of the prophet.
Therefore, you could say that I discovered a negative "truth" by means of experience, instead of by rational analysis of teachings. And I "debunked" certain beliefs by Bayesian probability updates, instead of by Logical certainty. As I said before, reasoning is only as good as it's premises. And religious premises are usually un-verifiable Axioms that must be taken on Faith, because conclusive evidence is not available. Those premises may be "self-evident" to yourself, but not obvious at all to someone else. As we discover daily on this forum. Consequently, ultimate "Truth" remains an unfulfilled quest for the Holy Grail. So, I practice no formal Religion, but I do have a personal Worldview, which guides my fallible reasoning about ultimate reality. FWIW, it does have a role for a G*D-of-the-philosophers (First Cause ; Logos),
There are thousands of religious sects, and they can't all teach a single cohesive Truth. So, their internal "contradictions" tend to be dismissed as "improper" interpretation, or surrounded by spurious sophistry, or dismissed as close-enough to "reasonableness". So, I don't engage each belief system in rigorous rational analysis. Instead, I have developed my own personal non-scriptural non-religious Philosophical belief system. It's based as far as possible on empirical evidence, but also supplemented with philosophical speculation. As you said, it's not absolute Truth, but it seems "reasonable" to me. :cool:
Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Took a look at "Part #3".
Seems like the crux of your argument rests in the following:
This doesn't hold water. Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true.
We should make a distinction between Christianity and the christians. No doubt, some christians are bad christians; but this does not suggest that Christianity is false; inasmuch as bad mathematicians don't make mathematics a false science.
Quoting 180 Proof
Being a Christian is easy in theory: It is all derived from the two great commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).
1. Love God: Admittedly this one is hard without the instructions of theologians, but generally means go to church, pray, some sacraments, etc.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself: follow the Golden Rule of ethics. Note that many people - not just christians - do this one; which means that many people are at least 50% christian.
Due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, since nothing comes from nothing, then the First Cause must have necessary existence. In other words, its identity is existence.
Exodus 3:14: God's name is "I AM". I = my identity; AM = being or existence.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.
But I'll give you the summary here.
If all A's we can observe are B, then it is reasonable to infer that "all A's are B", because the other possible explanation, "some A's are B and some are not", fails Occam's Razor. And if all A's are B, then the A's we cannot observe are also B.
E.g. If all swans we have observed so far are white, it is reasonable to infer that all swans are white, and we expect the next swan to be white.
Here is a closer example to the argument in the video: Suppose a fortuneteller claims he can predict what will happen to you tomorrow. He claims A (something that is not reasonably foreseeable) will happen, and indeed, A does happen the next day. Then he does it again, and again for 100 days in a row. Is it not reasonable to believe his next prediction?
I don't think so.
Philosophy is inherently critical. Any Christian philosopher worth their salt would put their efforts into disproving Christianity.
What you have posited is a recipe for confirmation bias.
I never could wrap my head around this alleged self-refutation that happens with logical positivism(?). It's a meta-empirical statement and so to bring it to bear on itself is a category mistake (N/A). It's justification lies in the fact that its rejection would be problematic in terms of claims that are unverifiable which simply means propositions whose truth value can't be ascertained at all. Philosophy would then become, inter alia, a speculative field, the exploration of pure possibility; there's a not-so-flattering name for this, day-dreaming. :snicker:
:up: :100:
Actually it isn't reasonable. X, Y and Z each stand or fall on their own accord. Since they are unverified, at best all that anyone can reasonably say about any one of them, is that it might possibly be true. Neither the number of verified claims, nor the number of unverified claims is relevant.
Keep in mind your argument: "if all the verifiable claims from a source are verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the remaining unverifiable claims are also true, being that they come from the same source".
Consider the following:
Let's say a given source only makes two claims. One verifiable. The other unverifiable. The verifiable claim is verified to be true. According to your argument, if the verifiable claim is verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the unverifiable claim is also true.
As a matter of curiosity, when you referred to a "single source" what did you have in mind? The Bible (Old and New Testament) as a whole? A subset of the Bible? God? The Holy Spirit?
Using personal Experience and innate Reason to hack a path through the jungle of religious beliefs was my only philosophical option. A common religious/political solution is to eliminate those who believe differently (excommunicate, burn at stake). Anyway, even though I had doubts about some aspects of my childhood religion, I could think of only two explanations for why-there-is-something-instead-of-nothing : A> Eternal Something (objects) or B> Eternal Potential (creative force). Before I was born, a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. From those bits of logic & evidence, the Big Bang theory was formulated. Which called into question, the long-standing scientific & philosophical presumption that our physical world (something) was eternal, and all there is.
At first, that idea sounded heretical to most empirical scientists. Probably because, if you accept that our Something (universe) is contingent upon some Unknown Factor outside of spacetime, the notion of an intentional world-creator begins to make sense. But those opposed, on principle, to the creator-concept preferred to imagine an infinite super-universe of randomly popping Big Bangs, and space-time without beginning or end. From the premise that some essential something (e.g. matter & space & energy & time & laws) abides forever, you can reason-out the Axiom underlying the Multiverse theory. Unfortunately, that precept is no more provable than the traditional Creator & Law-Maker assumption. It has to be taken on Faith.
But to common-sense, ever-changing (entropic/self-destructive) matter/energy is an unlikely candidate for an everlasting substance or eternal essence. So, the remaining contender is the governing Laws of organization (LOGOS), that are not subject to thermodynamic decay. That seems to be a more promising postulate for the First Cause of -- and reason for -- the Big Bang. Furthermore, since Natural Laws are a form of immaterial Information*1, I think of the presumptive Law Maker as The Enformer. Which is a Causal*2, but non-anthro-morphic, concept. And that became the axiom for my personal (philosophical, not religious) Enformationism thesis. Consequently, my worldview is not exactly Atheistic, or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Moreover, since I can't prove empirically that such a super-universal entity exists, I must remain religiously Agnostic.
Even with a philosophical First-Cause-concept, I don't "tie" that god-model to the Hebrew/Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Mormon scriptures. Based on my rational/critical investigations, none of those books "rings true" as of the Word of God. Yet, all of those "Holy Books" are accepted, on faith by millions, as authentic revelations (attested to by witnesses) from God directly, or from Angels, or other Divine Beings. From an outsider perspective though, they all have the earmarks of ordinary human fiction*3. My own religion, was a Protestant sect --- a stem off a limb branched off from the Catholic tradition. Which placed its faith in the earthly authority in the Church (i.e. Pope), instead of the canonized collection of first-century writings, assembled & edited by its own in-house redactors. Ironically, by rejecting the sovereignty of the human Pope, Protestants were forced to rely on unaided fallible human Reason to interpret their inherited Catholic scriptures. And the result of that freedom of interpretation is the cacophony of Christian sects we have today.
Therefore, the foundation of my back-to-the-bible religion was undermined by my own Reasoning. So, like the Atheists, I found that I could only rely on my own personal Power of Inference, to discern the "truth" of how & why there is something-instead-of-nothing. Yet, my rational philosophical approach didn't find evidence to support the notion of accidental emergence of our self-organizing world from the random roiling of self-existent atoms & forces. Instead, it came to the same conclusion that Spinoza was excommunicated for. What Blaise Pascal derisively labeled : "the god of the philosophers" (nature god). However, Spinoza assumed that the lawful physical world itself was eternal, whereas I think it was the pre-big-bang Lawmaker (the Enformer) that logically must be self-existent. Beyond that general notion derived from "the inner light" of fallible reasoning, I have no direct revelation from the LOGOS. Hence, no mandate for a worshipful or ceremonial religion. And, I can't even say, for sure, that contrary opinions are wrong. Does that sound pathetic to you? :cool:
*1. What is Information? :
Information is the power to enform, to create
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
*2. Causal Information :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
*3. It's easy to be skeptical & critical of other people's weird beliefs. But not so toward your own principles, premises & passions.
Note -- Empirical philosopher David Hume once said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". He's merely saying that reason, or logic, does not produce actionable beliefs. Apparently, he exempted freethinking philosophers from that servitude.
Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know Bertrand Russell
Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck Immanuel Kant
Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits William James
The only thing I know is that I know nothing Socrates
Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)²
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste ¹
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory ²
Indeed, philosophy is inherently critical of everything: christianity, atheism, and everything else.
That said, even if someone is biased (e.g. they subscribe to a particular religion), they can still arrive at truth, because valid arguments are valid regardless of intents.
But here is a better way to look at all this:
Philosophy is the search for truth; thus if Christianity is in fact true, then philosophy will find Christianity. And if Christianity is not true, then philosophy will find that too.
Self serving twaddle, frankly.
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous.
And another chance to share my favourite Dave Allen joke:
Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science.
Not sure that philosophy is the search for 'truth' as such. Philosophy is divided on approaches to truth and some schools deny truth in any transcendent sense. Some philosopher's would already say that Christianity has been found inadequate: case closed. I am assuming you would disagree with them because you are Christian in some way? I am also assuming that to many believers truth isn't ultimately important because there is faith and emotion at work.
What would it mean to say Christianity is true? Is this a philosophical question or a historical/scientific one? Which version of Christianity would you want tested in this way?
It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.
But also, the argument gets stronger with more verifiable claims; which better represents the case for the Christian claims.
Good questions Tom :up: :100:
I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please?
Sure it can be defended it works. The scientific method consists of an archive of practices, and is not a proposition. Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. After all, as the abductive saying goes: nothing fails like prayer. :eyes:
By works I suppose you mean that predictions (made by scientific theories) come true which is to say we have some semblance of control over our environment; we would like nothing better than to be in the driver's seat which seems to be unoccupied as far as we can tell.
Quoting javi2541997
Yeah, I second that. There's another thread here on what truth is?
:grin:
I think something more along the lines of modern healing arts vs traditional healing arts would be more fair a comparison.
Quoting Agent Smith
There is a tendency to when something works, we attribute it to the method rather than the individual, and when there is failure, to attribute it to the individual rather than than the method.
Science didn't produce general relativity theory. Einstein did.
Science didn't create the atom bomb. People did.
Indeed, the scientific method requires what Einstein himself went the extra mile to convey to neophytes and veterans in the field - imagination.
[quote=Albert Einstein]Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.[/quote]
That Einstein was a nutter :eyes:
Thanks for the obscure info. I had never heard of Grosseteste. I was referring to Lemaître in the 20th century. And the oblique reference was merely intended to suggest that the notion of a sudden beginning to space-time would seem more reasonable to a Christian than to an Atheist. Ever since, Atheists have been trying to find alternative philosophical (hypothetical ; speculative) explanations for the scientific evidence of a creation event (something from nothing). And they are still at it. (see below). :wink:
The Big Bang no longer means what it used to :
[i]The idea that the Universe had a beginning, or a "day without a yesterday" as it was originally known, goes all the way back to Georges Lemaître in 1927.
Although it's still a defensible position to state that the Universe likely had a beginning, that stage of our cosmic history has very little to do with the "hot Big Bang" that describes our early Universe.
Although many laypersons (and even a minority of professionals) still cling to the idea that the Big Bang means"the very beginning of it all," that definition is decades out of date.[/i]
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-meaning/
Note -- In place of a magical act of creation, this article is based on the magical notion of instantaneous Inflation ("Presto!") of a universe from a random "fluctuation" in a hypothetical "field" of nothing-but Potential.
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theorys most fervent critics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=1832b18fb45e
FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).
My current view is that all religions are "true" for people of faith, but are "false" for those outside the faith community. So, my current "church" is a community of one not-so-true believer. Hence, I'm standing up here alone, preaching to the invisible choir. I don't recommend it for die-hard truth-seekers. :joke:
*1. That's only partly true. After I got out of the Navy, I started going to a Unity church. But that was mostly to meet "nice" girls, and only partly out of curiosity about the way-liberal Unitarian off-shoot of the Christian religion. They had a sort of Pagan/New Agey truish Truth, but it wasn't my kind of truth. The girls were nice though.
No - I believe this topic is purely theological, that is, it can only be derived based on divine revelations. That said, the philosopher may be able to uncover other christian claims (e.g. the golden rule of ethics) and eventually conclude that the bible is a trustworthy source. I explain this in my video #3. If interested, you can search for the following title in YouTube (the forum moderators don't like me posting my video links):
Philosophy vs Theology | A Christian Philosophy - Part #3
Quoting Banno
The two are not incompatible. You may act as a christian, and one the side, search for truth starting from scratch. In fact, the christian is encouraged to search for truth. "Seek and you shall find".
By the way, that was a good joke.
I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found.
Quoting Tom Storm
Well that depends on their arguments.
Quoting Tom Storm
The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc.
I'll try. Topics may be one of the following three: (1) rationally verifiable (using reason alone), (2) empirically verifiable (observable or detectable), or (3) not verifiable at all.
Example of (1): "Nothing is true" is a self-contradiction, therefore "Some things are true" is necessarily true. This is verified without the need for empirical evidence.
Example of (2): "Whether there is methane on Mars". Best to go and collect empirical evidence.
Example of (3): "Whether there exist beings which we cannot detect or interact with in any ways". This seems unverifiable either rationally or empirically, and thus it is superfluous.
Scientism believes in (2) and correctly rejects (3), but omits (1).
Do you see any connection between 1 & 3?
To clarify, I am not questioning the validity of the scientific method - it's a correct method. But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work.
To say the scientific method works simply means it has produced many (scientific) theories that do a good job of a) explaining phenomena and b) predicting phenomena, whatever these phenomena are.
Not always. I've met many Christians who do not think Christ was identical to God. Some do not believe the Gospels to be accurate accounts. But more importantly, you've left things vague. Christian beliefs are all over the shop. Some think 'fags should die by fire'; others embrace the rainbow flag. Some condemn gay marriage; some support it. Some think capital punishment is anathema; other support it. Some think women should be priests; some advocate misogyny. Some think it's god's blessing to be rich; others believe money should be given away. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the head of the KKK both identify as Christian and accept that good and evil are objective. Christianity means little until the specific beliefs are described
Despite the lack of intellectual honesty of your last response, I'll give it one more try.
Has it not occurred to you that most posters on a philosophy forum are well acquainted with inductive reasoning? Your understanding seems to be very superficial and simplistic. You don't seem to understand that inductive reasoning has its limitations. You don't seem to understand that its usefulness is in drawing general conclusions about a given subject from specific observations about that very same subject. You also don't seem to understand that it works best when dealing with concrete subjects. It is less reliable when dealing with in the abstract. The more abstract, the less reliable. Anyone who understands these things is not going to buy your argument that it is reasonable to believe unverifiable claims on the strength of verifiable claims. Unverifiable claims are not only NOT the same subject as verifiable claims, the subject is far too abstract for it to be reliable.
Some years ago, a friend of mine used a similar argument for reincarnation: The verifiable claims of Buddhism are true, therefore it is reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true. Are you buying? Why or why not?
If we demonstrate that the black cat is real, then we should believe it is real. What does it matter that we have "already found it" beforehand?
Huh?
I don't believe this distinction works. Propositions refer to things; things such as the scientific method. In other words, "the scientific method is a valid method" is a proposition that can be verified.
Quoting Agent Smith
I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence.
That one in particular seems odd to me. "Christian" has the word "Christ" in it haha. The others you have listed may indeed be disputed. That's fine; I think what I have listed originally is at the core of all Christian branches. If philosophy validates these claims, Christianity is off to a good start.
Ah! You're taking this to the next level (of skepticism). Setting aside hyperbolic skepticism for the moment, do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately?
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting A Christian Philosophy
But then the methodologies are sort of self-verifying because of successful models. The success stories are the evidence. Otherwise the methodologies (and science) would have been thrown out.
Scientific methodologies, being evidence-driven, consist of (provisional, tentative) models converging on accumulating domain-specific evidence/observations. The methodologies are activities, observations, evidence collection, experiments, protocols being run, all that. A reasonably stable, falsifiable model could be promoted to a theory.
The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes. Presumably you're using some while posting here (near-realtime worldwide communication over the Internet using complex electronic devices, electricity in your home). Other examples could be GPS helping us navigate (also uses relativity), cholera control, clean water, exploring Mars with rovers, fair treatments of schizophrenia, the insulin story (type 1 diabetes no longer a death sentence), helping paralysed to talk and move, ... Such like can serve as evidence justifying the methodologies (technically not proof), or they'd been ditched. Science works.
Anyway, I'd say philosophy spawned science, after it had grown substantially, but that goes way back.
An absolutely vital part of any scientific project as well.
The observe thing in science is not aimlessly looking at whatever. When clever guys, as the mapping out of the world progressed, saw how well Brazil fitted into West Africa they started thinking.
Dont really, as a non Academic know what Platonism is, but when I read the dialogues, those guys werent stupid, they just didnt have the tools we have now. I see no direct contradiction with science, on the contrary they were well on the track. They used what they had and did a good job with it. And picking up where they started, it wasnt too long before philosophers like Bacon sent nerdier thinkers on the track to knowledge. Nerds are super useful.
Wheres that video btw?
The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean?
I would say, "Imagination works".
My view is that science doesn't create, it only verifies and recreates.
Religion is imagination without verification.
Science/engineering is imagination + verification.
:up: :clap: I couldn't have said it better.
Science from DICTIONARY.COM:
"Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
From Wikipedia:
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
From Science Council (https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/):
"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Now, about the list of sciences that is presented:
- Mathematics is generally not considered a science, although some do consider it as such. It is actually a field of knowledge including systematic treatment of magnitudes (numbers), relationships (formulas) and related forms, shapes and structures (geometry. However, it is used and is essential in Science.
- Logic is not a science. It is a system and principles of reasoning. It is used in Math and it is essential in Philosophy.
- Metaphysics a not a science. It is a branch of philosophy. (Otherwise, Philosophy itself would belong in part to science!)
- Epistemology is not a science. It is a branch of philosophy.
- Ethics is not a science. It is a system, rules and principles of human conduct. It is also a branch of philosophy.
The 10 main branches of science from https://leverageedu.com:
Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Zoology, Astronomy, Medicine, Astrophysics, Earth Sciences
***
This is a general view and summarizing of science and its branches. There are certainly other views and I, myself do not stick to it. My main point is that 4 members of the list presented in the topic as "sciences" certainly do not belong there and one is questionable at best. On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. In short, the list is ill-prepared.
As for the difference between Science and Philosophy as well as the boundaries, area of knowledge, purpose and responsibilities of each have long been determined and the history of their union and separation is well known. So, I believe it is useless to come back every now and then to this subject.
On the other hand, we can talk --and this is quite interesting and promising-- about how science can and is already used in philosophy. (Not the other way around.)
Don't think that quite captures it. (Unless you're using the word in an unusually broad sense?)
Check examples; science has also done away with bloodletting and phlogiston ...
I was responding to the following post: Quoting Agent Smith
But I think we are passed that now :blush:. We can just focus on the other conversation.
I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again.
Could you show me where in my statements I am moving the goalpost?
Quoting jorndoe
To clarify my point: The scientific method works. No disagreement here. The only thing I want to point is that since x cannot be used to support x, so the scientific method cannot be used to support the scientific method. To keep it simple, the scientific method is verification by empirical evidence. Those success stories you mention are all forms of empirical evidence. Therefore those success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.
To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic. That would again be circular.
Quoting Ansiktsburk
I think the link got taken off by the moderators haha. But you can search for the following video title on YouTube:
Philosophy vs Science | A Christian Philosophy - Part #2
Please clarify your position. How exactly is science guilty of a circulus in probando? Be explicit. Danke.
You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes. I should have clarified that the list in the OP is not exhaustive - just examples.
I've numbered the propositions below so it is easier to refer to them.
1. x cannot be used to support x. This is circular reasoning.
2. The scientific method is, simply put, verification by empirical evidence.
3. All success stories resulting from the scientific method are types of empirical evidence.
4. Therefore, these success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.
To be extra clear: The scientific method is a correct method. It is not inherently circular. What is circular is to attempt to defend the scientific method by appealing to the scientific method. To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic.
Scientific success stories (theories) are based on empirical evidence (observational data in re retrodiction & prediction). Remember that it is false to conclude from retrodiction & prediction that scientific theories are true (converse fallacy or fallacy of affirming the consequent). Science is abduction (argument to the best explanation) and explanations either fit/don't it observations. Observations don't prove a scientific theory (circularity is moot).
Where's the circularity you're talking about?
Fine. Thank you for your honest reply.
Science involves two major things:
Prediction and verification.
Both are part of the "scientific method".
Essentially, saying "science works" is saying:
1. Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction.
+
2. Prediction + verification leads to higher accuracy of prediction.
If 1 is right, then 2 is easy to verify: Just compare an equal number of new not yet verified predictions VS old previously verified predictions.
But how do we verify 1?
And is it
1. A philosophical claim/principle
Or
2. A scientific claim/principle.
If 2, then it means, "I predict that empirical observation will verify a prediction". But then how can I verify if an empirical observation verifies a prediction? Infinite regress.
Therefore, "Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction."
Is a philosophical claim or principle.
This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer.
Scientism is the confused belief that a hammer doesn't require a hand.
Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work?
Or that the hand can do and is useful for a lot of different things while the hammer is used for a specific purpose only?
At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work.
But there is a difference between using a framework and critically examining the framework or coming up with frameworks.
Many scientists take the epistemological framework methodological naturalism rests on for granted. This can be dangerous, as they may not know the limits of the framework, and think its the "one true effective epistemology", or that everything is reducible to matter.
This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation.
This is as silly as reducing music to sheet music. Or a book to grammar.
Yes. Those thought-experiment tools (logic, etc) are used to extract general or universal meaning from personal & local experience. As a matter of fact, theoretical & mathematical physicists (e.g. Einstein & Tegmark) are actually doing philosophy, leaving the messy hands-on mechanic-work to others*1. Ironically, some believers in Scientism act as-if the reductive & empirical methods of modern Science, have eliminated the need for the ancient holistic & intuitive methods of Philosophy. Which also provided the illuminating metaphors that inform the various worldviews of Religion (e.g. Plato's LOGOS vs John's Logos).
Unfortunately. that questionable exclusionary presumption often leaves stalwarts of Sovereign Science unable to articulate the general significance of their abstruse findings*2. Hence, their explanations sometimes take the sole-authority form of "because . . . science". In other words, their proof is based on the authoritative status of the "scientific method", which differs from Philosophy in its use of telescopes, microscopes, and cyclotrons. On the other hand, Philosophy is essentially Science without artificial tools -- using only your god-given reasoning ability : both deductive and abductive.
The distinction you seem to be making is that Scientism tends to lump Philosophy & Religion together as faith-intuition-based reasoning. Whereas, another way to look at those relationships is to view Religion & Science as the offspring of Philosophy. In that case, Science concerns itself with Physics (Matter-Energy), and Religion with Metaphysics (Mind-Soul), while Philosophy covers both aspects of this "blue dot" in the cosmos, inhabited by thinking lumps of matter : Reality & Ideality. :cool:
*1. Einstein's lab is a pencil :
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Note -- a child once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your laboratory?". To which he replied, wordlessly, by holding up a pencil.
Deduction : Literally subtraction of parts from wholes, specific from general, particular from universal ; analysis of integrated systems into isolated components.
Intuition : acquiring knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning ; to know without proof ; instinctive ; holistic insights.
That's OK for the individual. But others may not intuit exactly what you feel "rings true". Hence, the necessity for logical or empirical demonstrations that are not peculiar to a single person. Yet, skeptical sounding may find that the bell is cracked, contrary to faith-based assumptions.
*2. Thus, the many Science-for-Dummies videos on YouTube, such as Science Without the Gobbedygook and Complex Questions Answered Simply.
PS___We can't depend on Empirical Physics to test the validity of Metaphysical beliefs. Skeptical Science may discover little evidence for the physical existence of Jesus (e.g. bones in a cave ; Roman records). But belief in the role of the Christ is predicated upon the axiom of a non-physical Father in Heaven. And the only evidence to support or deny that common concept is metaphysical in (super) nature, hence a Philosophical question.
I see what you mean and your approach to the subject.
Quoting Yohan
Right. As a programmer, I don't see my work as just coding and creating programs, but mainly about finding solutions.
Possibly, but that does not describe me, nor colleagues I have known over the years. Perhaps autistic mathematicians.
But when science tries to understand the fundamental laws of nature, and to achieve a theory of everything, this sounds a lot like philosophy...so much so that I can't tell the difference.
A "law" is an abstraction, or is it something that can be directly observed? It doesn't seem to be physical. I don't see why a law wouldn't be considered metaphysical, but maybe that's an appeal to etymology.
Shrug
Science tries to overcome the concept of vagueness by just ignoring it. But I believe the vague issues occupies more of our field of view than focused issues. However, vagueness is difficult to study, and can generally only be studied in philosophy.
Do you have something to support this claim? Also, what is abstract about the argument in the video?
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Given the condition that all claims come from the same source and were derived in a similar way (e.g., divine revelation, fortune-telling, etc.), then I am buying. For the same reasons as before: Given that all the verifiable claims are verified to be true, it is reasonable to infer that the source or method is reliable. Note that this is similar to the other discussion occurring in this thread: The scientific method is reliable because it can predict outcomes accurately.
What is your answer to your own questions? Are you saying it is more reasonable to assume all the unverifiable claims to be false?
I think you've explained it pretty well. Alvin Plantinga would be proud of you. You've famed a formation argument for reformed epistemology in an accessible way. Are you a presuppositionalist?
If I understand you correctly, you make a distinct between proof and support; i.e., observations do not prove theories but support the best theory that fit them? In which case, circularity remains: x cannot be used to support or defend x. Any empirical evidence cannot be used to defend the scientific method (whose claim is that empirical evidence can be used to defend a claim).
"Fits" would be the apposite word, not "support". An explanation (how) is the first order of business and only then prediction (why).
Thanks! And I'll read up on that Plantinga fella.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't believe so - I have never heard the term until now haha. Just looking for principles and trying to avoid circularity when possible.
A succinct way to describe the scientific method. The 3[sup]rd[/sup] step however doesn't prove the explanation (2) is true (re abduction aka argument to the best explanation) and so circularity is N/A.
I tagged you in another thread where I said that explanatory theories can be assumed true until falsified. A subtle difference but an important one in my humble opinion.
I'm repeating myself now, my apologies.
Yep, I agree with that. Verification by falsification does not make explanations certain but makes them the most reasonable. To add my 2 cents - these principles of "novacula occami (simplicity) & beauty & elegance" are founded on the more fundamental principle of Sufficient Reason. I describe that principle in my video Part #4, if interested.
Quoting Agent Smith
I think I could keep going, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile. How about we leave it here? Sounds like we are almost in agreement anyways haha.
The nerve! :rage:
It was so painful to read... that dude or gal is ignorant as hell.
Parricide! :scream: