the tyranny of religion within democracy

Post Reply New Topic

But science is based upon philosophy, you cannot say science is ever higher because science is nothing but an epistemological framework and thus it is a philosophy. Now, to place philosophy above other philosophy is merely a matter of assumptions, and frankly, the nature of all assumptions is that if we question them to the deepest level, we find one level where there is no further examination or reason. All systems demand some form of test to make sure that an idea fits within that system and is a part of its understanding, so science is no more peculiar than any other study, such as theology or law.

Be pragmatic. Of course science speculates in the same fashion as philosophy. But science requires a further step in looking at the environment and seeing if there can be confirmation for the speculation. And it requires that other scientists make the same inquiries to confirm the results. Philosophy meanders on and on about the nature of things which is good but insufficient. Science leads to technology which is why we can have this conversation. Philosophy alone without confirmation contributes very little if anything to civilization. But no doubt it is amusing. And it provides ideas for science to confirm or throw in the junk heap.

Pragmatic always relates to purpose. To presuppose purpose without proving it seems nonsensical to me as you tell me to accept your framework to prove your framework. Science is a philosophical framework though, you cannot deny that and you haven't. Setting a philosophical framework above philosophy makes little sense, it is saying that evolutionary theory is above science as a whole. Philosophy critiques science, not the other way around just as scientific method critiques evolutionary theory. You can state all the things in the world you want about science, but you still have to deal with it as a philosophy.

Philosophy is an element of science. Pragmatic relates not to purpose but to practicality. I am setting nothing above anything else. Merely noting procedures. I am not clear as to what you mean as proof. Science merely checks with nature as to whether a philosophic speculation fits with observed evidence.

No, science is a type of philosophy. Practicality is still something that cannot be separated from purpose. What is practical is dictated entirely by one's ends. Procedures? No, you are setting science apart from philosophy, philosophy gave birth to science, science is merely a particular epistemological method, it is a framework, it cannot be separated as you attempt. Evidence relates solely to what one calls evidence, I can call personal revelation evidence, I can call a holy book to be evidence, I can call the words of Mr. Doogan evidence, but none of those 3 is scientific evidence.

If you term personal revelation evidence then any whacko with a wild idea is a scientist. I am confident that your personal viewpoint is totally divergent from accepted consideration. No further rational discussion between us is possible.

No, it isn't scientific evidence though. Science is a certain system, a set framework, a wacko with a wild idea cannot be a scientist so long as we retain the definition of science and recognize that science has a particular method. I don't think you understand my argument, science is not the study of all possible evidences but only a certain set of evidences that are believed by those who accept the validity of science as the most valid, others take different views which explains mysticism and other positions I think you disdain. I did not think much discussion between us would be possible. I tend towards extreme skepticism towards all claims of any knowledge, you tend more towards a materialistic, logical positivistic world as truth, and you could not accept my idea and I could not accept your idea. I wouldn't accept my position if I were you really.

I understand, to a certain degree your point but you don't seem to grasp that science holds all its matrix of interrelated and accepted "facts" tentatively. The obverse of that is that ideas that are considered outside the scientific continuum are excluded only as long as they cannot be seen to nest into ideas that are workable and useful. When a solidly held scientific idea is shown to have flaws it is rejected. Inspired concepts with no physical confirmation simply are of no use. The huge technological advances in the last two centuries bears clear witness to the utility of scientific principles.

huh?

I know about science. Science is a process of finding information, you can trust this process, you can believe this is the only good process, you can outright reject this process as finding what is truly important, you can even believe that all of the physical laws of the universe change randomly and thus all scientific knowledge will fail within the next 5 years. I know that science does not claim much absolutely as well, but that does not change its nature as a philosophical framework/epistemological framework. Now, one can talk about how one prefers the framework on the basis of certain things but a framework it still is.


Yeah, science is a particular epistemological framework. Epistemological frameworks are based in philosophy. If one holds the right premises as true one can deny or accept science as valid but science by itself does not debunk any of the skeptical hypotheses on the nature of the world(brain in a vat, 5 minute creation, etc), and people do reject science as the path to truth (mystics, theists, nihilists, etc).

It seems to me that you are confusing philosophy with faith.
Philosophy, like mathematics, speculates on various possibilities but does nothing to confirm the actualities of the possibilities. Admittedly there is a faith behind science that phenomena are consistent and that the human mind can understand and relate phenomena to create a self consistent whole. The mind in a vat concept is unprovable and perhaps amusing but of no real use. If this is a framework, so what? That does not make it invalid. Mystics and others are not particular useful in dealing with the world, whatever the possibilities of their concepts.

Actually, science is not something you trust. It's a method you use. You can disagree with any principle, law or theory used in science, but regardless, they're there because they're the results of observations. But whether or not you believe or not believe in any of its ideas is completely irrelevant to doing science itself. And just because it started off as a philosophy doesn't mean it's still a philosophy. Science has developed tremendously throughout human history, and in fact, the only part of science that might be considered "philosophical" would be the scientific method. However, science does not speculate on things that might be true indefinitely; science actually goes on to use evidences and real observations to make a point. Scientists don't simply make up some idea and stick to it just because they think it works; they will stop sticking up for it if they've found through their results that there's a contradiction in what they've observed and what they've proposed. Philosophers, on the other hand, need not do this. They don't have to make sure their ideas act in accordance with reality necessarily, but only because they can't test them. You may argue that science is a philosophy, but what we have found through the methods of science are not. That the Earth is not 6000 years old and that it is not flat is not philosophy; it is reality. If you want to continue believing the Earth is flat, on the shallow basis that science is merely philosophy, that's just fine by me. Just don't wonder why they sell maps of the Earth in the form of a globe.


Yeah, science is a particular epistemological framework. Epistemological frameworks are based in philosophy. If one holds the right premises as true one can deny or accept science as valid but science by itself does not debunk any of the skeptical hypotheses on the nature of the world(brain in a vat, 5 minute creation, etc), and people do reject science as the path to truth (mystics, theists, nihilists, etc).[/quote]

They are free to do so, whatever their reasons, just as anyone can deny 1+1=2. People don't need a logical or philosophical reason to disbelieve or believe in something. They may even use a silly tribal or religious myth as an excuse. But in knowledge, science is not philosophical. There is a distinction between what is real and observable and what isn't. The majority of philosophy discusses what might not be real, but is certainly not observable. Science does not do the same.

Actually, scientists invented all their stuff. They invented the electron, the neutron, the atom etc. Then they went out and discovered something and it looked pretty much like the electron etc. that they had invented. So they called those things the electron, the neutron, etc. And then they discovered that whacking them with other particles they behaved in a certain way. Of course they invented reality and then found things that fit. Philosophers invent all sorts of things and they never bother to find things that fit.

No, I am not. Philosophy does speculate on various possibilities, it does not confirm at all and the reason it does not confirm is that nothing can be confirmed outside of a particular philosophical system. Faith is a philosophy, and it is arguably the foundation of most philosophical beliefs outside of those that are unlivably skeptical. Being a framework does not make it invalid, but it does cause for questions on what makes the framework valid, which goes back to epistemological assumptions. Like I said though, use goes back to purposes, you cannot talk about utility without talking about a goal, and frankly, goals cannot be proven as correct or incorrect or as shared either, there is still a problem with what we ought to do and with what is.

I know, it is an epistemological framework that basically outlines procedures for finding what according to that framework is a likely truth. You do have to trust it, it doesn't provide answers unless you use the framework though.

No, it is still an epistemological framework, the BASIS of it is philosophical. You cannot have science without a philosophy of what science is, what it demands, etc. Your claim could still be extended to theology, the only philosophy in it is acceptance of the holy book, all else is merely logical extrapolation from that holy book. Really though, if we wanted, we could merely call science to be worldly empirical philosophy as philosophy is an inquiry into the nature of reality.
Science does go to use empirical observations, that is not a major problem, epistemologically they are empirical, the major difference is that most philosophy is seen as purely rationalist, but still, I tend to doubt that world-oriented philosophy can work and exist without an understanding of outside worldly elements. As such, I still see it as a form of logical positivism.

They do have to make sure that their ideas act in accordance with the reality that they accept though. Now, scientists merely accept all elements of the outside world as correct, philosophers might not be bound in such a manner if they are less empirical.

They are the conclusions found within the philosophical system of thought that we know as science. The position that these things are real is merely based upon the assumptions of that philosophy. Of course I can do that, I can believe whatever I want and you cannot prove to me on any absolute level that your ideas are true. They don't sell maps of the earth in the form of a globe, they sell flat sheets of paper, they sell globes in the shape of globes, so I really wasn't that curious on it. However, I merely mean to say that if you are going to postulate an absolute truth then you must absolutely prove it, and frankly, skepticism can go so far to make all absolute proof impossible thus meaning that all statements of truth are based upon assumptions and that there is no meta-philosophy to claim that any assumption is completely superior. To philosophize on what assumptions are most important, one usually must assume their own philosophy thus negating the ability for people to find truth through that.


No, because there isn't a philosophical reason to do either. Science is a philosophy of knowledge. Science acts based upon what is observable, however, one of the assumptions usually taken is that the observable is absolutely real. I do not deny observation, I deny that observation is necessarily, absolutely true.

I deny that observation is necessarily, absolutely true.

If you believe that, you are well on your way to insanity. You may doubt an interpretation of your observations but the only contact you have with this universe is through your senses. Toss that away and you are lost.

Yeppers, but who says crazy is bad? Insanity is by its nature a societal construct as the only way to get improper functioning is with a notion of proper functioning.