Origins of the Universe

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

How? Everything philosophy has achieved could have been achieved by other means, better and faster. Saying its the journey rather than the destination is rather meaningless, theres always a result, even if its just a side effect of the process.

Thats just plain stupid. If something could have achieved things better and faster then it would have.

Zillah wrote:

I didn't say I was a Nihilist, simply that I has such leanings. In a world that is ultimately relative, then observable results are all that I can trust. Hence, science. And nihilism isn't something to which one subscribes, its a way of describing similar outlooks.

that doesnt make any sense.

Zillah wrote:

Yes it does. It is completely pointless to consider something that is unverifiable. Unless you just want a logic work out.

thats a ridiculous statement on so many levels. Are you a human being or a computer?

Zillah wrote:

But none that are fundamentally unverifiable. As opposed to something like God. Its a crucial element in the scientific process; its called falsifiability. Something must have a reasonable method by which it can be proven false for it to be a scientific theory.

And everything in science is falsifable? Poppers criteria are very nice and in a perfect world maybe science could strictly stick to those criteria but it doesnt.

Zillah wrote:

Analysing the origins of human belief in the supernatural is part of the fascinating science of Anthropology. Philosophy doesn't do that.

And widespread belief in the soul is not evidence for its existence.

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc. It does this becuase there is widespread belief in a soul. Widespread belief in something is criteria that warrants an investigation into it. Sometimes no conclusions can be drawn .. a metaphysical explanation is just as valid as materilaist explanation until the materialist explantion can be shown to be true. Which it hasnt.

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Thats just plain stupid. If something could have achieved things better and faster then it would have.

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

that doesnt make any sense.

To you, perhaps. Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Regardless, the nihilism issue is not important.

thats a ridiculous statement on so many levels. Are you a human being or a computer?

I fail to see the relevance of the question. You seem to be implying that the fact that we are human somehow makes sloppy, irrational paradigms justifiable, rather than a regrettable, but avoidable failure.

And the statement I made did make sense, but again I fear you've missed the point. The only reason one would seriously consider a claim that lacks falsifiability is if you feel like an exercise to flex your logical muscles. There can be nothing gained, as the claim is useless.

Try wiki-ing "falsifiability" and then come back.

And everything in science is falsifable?

Absolutely everything. If its not falsifiable then its no longer a scientific theory. They don't need to be immediately falsifiable, but they must, at least potentially be falsifiable.

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc. It does this becuase there is widespread belief in a soul. Widespread belief in something is criteria that warrants an investigation into it. Sometimes no conclusions can be drawn .. a metaphysical explanation is just as valid as materilaist explanation until the materialist explantion can be shown to be true. Which it hasnt.

Most of this is specious silliness. Essentially its a load of baseless nonesense that encourages people to invent ridiculous, fanciful world views.

Every piece of actual hard evidence ever collected and verified has pointed towards the world existing as matter and energy and absolutely nothing beyond.

The only relevant investigation to be done based on widespread belief in a soul is psychological and anthropological. I'd suggest a paper entitled; "Willful Dellusion: An investigation into the mind's ability to decieve itself and to assemble a world view of fantasy and myth."

The philosophy of mind deals with questions about the soul, dualism, materialism etc.

It asks questions? Does it provide any answers? If not, then people are invited to simply invent answers?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

Are you for real? What would you replace philosophy with that would make it go faster or better? Philosophical thought is an essential part of humanity whether its done by philosophers or by joe soap. There is nothing to replace it .. we cant just view the world through a scientific paradigm. And I dont know what the sigh is for .. you are just being plain ridiculous.

Zillah wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of the question. You seem to be implying that the fact that we are human somehow makes sloppy, irrational paradigms justifiable, rather than a regrettable, but avoidable failure.

They may seem sloppy to a one dimensional person who never leaves their computer screen. All our expereinces cant be boxed neatly into a clear cut scientific paradigm. You would know this if u tried living a little. Life is sloppy and irrational .. we cant just dismiss everything out of hand becuase it doesnt fit into a certain criteria. The kind of hyper skepticism that you seem to potray is impossible to apply to all aspects of our experience of life.

Zillah wrote:

And the statement I made did make sense, but again I fear you've missed the point. The only reason one would seriously consider a claim that lacks falsifiability is if you feel like an exercise to flex your logical muscles. There can be nothing gained, as the claim is useless.

Try wiki-ing "falsifiability" and then come back.

I'm well aware what falsifiability means and i havent missed your point .. I'm afraid you are missing mine. You are trying to apply scientific criteria to all aspects of life. That doesnt work and you cant just call it pointless. Pointless is a perspective. What you would consider pointless, others do not.

Zillah wrote:

Absolutely everything. If its not falsifiable then its no longer a scientific theory. They don't need to be immediately falsifiable, but they must, at least potentially be falsifiable.

What does potentially falsifiable mean? Are memetics falsifiable? How do know we if they ever will be falsifiable?

Zillah wrote:

Most of this is specious silliness. Essentially its a load of baseless nonesense that encourages people to invent ridiculous, fanciful world views.

Every piece of actual hard evidence ever collected and verified has pointed towards the world existing as matter and energy and absolutely nothing beyond.

The only relevant investigation to be done based on widespread belief in a soul is psychological and anthropological. I'd suggest a paper entitled; "Willful Dellusion: An investigation into the mind's ability to decieve itself and to assemble a world view of fantasy and myth."

I've just realised that I'm wasting time that I dont have. You will find out for yourself at some stage.

Scofflaw

This discussion reminds me of the reason why I post on the Creationism thread.

I don't apply the scientific paradigm to everything, because it is a tool designed for studying specific forms of knowledge. It is inapplicable outside its field.

Mathematics, for example, is entirely respectable, but rationalist, not empiricist, and therefore not 'scientific' - some mathematics is susceptible of empirical proof, but most is not. Some of it doesn't even make empirical sense - what is the square root of minus one? Is it observable? No, it is not, yet mathematics has the credibility that many sceptics wish to deny to other rationalist fields (like, ooh, say theology) on the basis that they are not empirical fields.

I argue against Creationists not because belief in Genesis is unscientific, but purely because they claim it is scientific. In that claim is the whole reason for contending against Creationism, because in order to "prove" their claims they distort the perception of what science is. That distortion, which is merely a tool to them, is phenomenally dangerous - something that their claim itself is not. I would have no objection if they want to set up colleges that attempt to apply Creationism in interpreting the physical world - that is not a problem, because it simply cannot be made to actually work. It is the distortion of the perception of what real science is, and what real science offers, that is dangerous.

I have no brief for attacking unreason, except where it has empirical effects, or contradicts scientific findings. Other than that, live and let live, and accept that science cannot replace philosophy, any more than a hammer can replace a knife.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

Are you for real? What would you replace philosophy with that would make it go faster or better?

You're either willfully misunderstanding me or you're never gonna get it. Your tone is becoming quite trying. How about you give a blanket "I don't respect other peoples opinions" comment and you can save time with all the little dismissive comments sprinkled through out. And if you don't stop I'll just start insulting right back, k?

I wasn't talking about improving philosophy, I was talking about bypassing it altogether. Things like human rights, legal systems, equality and all that, those kind of things can be done simply by sitting down and getting right to it. Arguably thats a form of "philosophy", in which case its a form I can live with. A lot of things about human rights and equality however came about because of nonesense about souls and God, that kind of stuff can be tackled much better outside a paradigm of illusions.

Medieval England believed that the king ruled by God's will, and hence he was treated with absurd levels of repects and people acted as if he had the authority of God. Thats the sort of insane silliness that abstract philosophical models can lead to. Burning jews, burning witches, burning heretics. Burning based on nonesense. That'd certainly be an awful way to go.

Philosophical thought is an essential part of humanity whether its done by philosophers or by joe soap. There is nothing to replace it .. we cant just view the world through a scientific paradigm. And I dont know what the sigh is for ..

Whats essential about it? You've consistently ignored my requests for any answer rather than questions. You just kind of pretended that question didn't happen above.

And I don't think you're in any position to talk about the scientific paradigm, you've already shown you don't understand falsifiability and you previously claimed that "in all likelyhood" your sentience would magically reform in a new self sustaining energy pattern free of the brain and body.*

*I think this was you a couple weeks ago. If not, disregard.

They may seem sloppy to a one dimensional person who never leaves their computer screen.

Oh yes, very mature. I have a life outside boards, its fun and full of stuff. I have no problem with sloppy behaviour, just sloppy belief. I do stupid irrational things all the time, because I want to. But I'm under no illusions as to whats underpinning it all.

All our expereinces cant be boxed neatly into a clear cut scientific paradigm.

Of course it can. Explain one scenario in your life that can't?

You would know this if u tried living a little. Life is sloppy and irrational .. we cant just dismiss everything out of hand becuase it doesnt fit into a certain criteria. The kind of hyper skepticism that you seem to potray is impossible to apply to all aspects of our experience of life.

I apply that sort of hyper-scepticism to my world view. It makes sure I understand, to the best of my ability, to the world around me. It doesn't mean that I constantly run every decision through a scientific framework, just that I'm under no illusions as so why I do something.

I'm well aware what falsifiability means and i havent missed your point .. I'm afraid you are missing mine. You are trying to apply scientific criteria to all aspects of life. That doesnt work and you cant just call it pointless. Pointless is a perspective. What you would consider pointless, others do not.

Ok. "If one man has a soul, then it is objectively wrong to kill him, because he is your spiritual equal." People could play around with that statement for days with philosophy, but what does it achieve?

In the long run people might work out a system of morality whereby killing someone is wrong. But wouldn't it be so much more expedient and accurate to realise that such morality is not based on magical extradimensional factors, but is in a fact a very tangible result of evolutionary psychology? Its the jet engine you see.

What does potentially falsifiable mean? Are memetics falsifiable? How do know we if they ever will be falsifiable?

Memetics are at least in theory falsifiable. Doesn't mean it will ever happen, its a very very delicate kind of topic to attack. The best way to demonstrate "potentially falsifiable" is with an example of whats not. God. Any statements about God are completely redundant because we can never ever in any way shape or form be sure that God doesn't exist. Until God appears in the sky and makes some proclamations then any discussion on the nature of God is futile, it achieves nothing that can't be achieved in better ways (like the above morality).

It doesn't mean that everyone who talks about memetics is being scientific about it, and to be honest I'm only passingly familiar with it. I havn't read Popper, although I'm planning to. Its possible he's indugled inphilosophy rather than science

I've just realised that I'm wasting time that I dont have. You will find out for yourself at some stage.

Ah, the old "I'm so much better than you and hence I'm running away" parting shot.

DublinEvents

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I have always felt that the probability of a "god" was remarkably slim but lately I have been thinking about the nature of the universe(initiation of universe/big bang, space, time etc) and am puzzled by how the universe initiated. Does'nt the creation of the universe defy the laws of physics which we observe? (speed of light etc). Maybe the concept of a universe just poping into existence is beyond our minds , it seems such an amazing occurance and there is the chance that there was a creator of the universe, I just find it hard to accept that the universe just began out of nothing with nothing initiating the start. Even if a parallel universe or something outside of our universe created the universe what created the thing that created our universe?

Even if something consciously created the universe, it doesnt mean that something has any interaction with it now,maybe it created itself. What does science hypothesise about the creation of the universe?
I have been getting the feeling that everything in the universe is predestined right down to our thoughts and ability to change our destiny is an illusion, but this is probably just because of my anxiety.

Are we just animals? Are animals just self aware matter? What is matter? mmmmm
Wish i could find solace in theism. Can't accept that the universe emerged from a timeless spaceless void. Maybe universe has always existed but just constantly expanded then contracted.

My friend, it is really good and heartwarming to see that you are contemplating on the origin of the universe. This is what all humans are supposed to do. I sincerely believe that God exists. He has created us and put us on this planet in a virtually limitless universe and He has given us something unique that other organisms on our planet do not possess: an advanced brain. We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction. The birth of the universe was not a random event at all. God created us to test us and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose. Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

Zillah

DublinEvents wrote:

We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction.

Why do you think that science, which got everything else so right, go it wrong this time?

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I have no brief for attacking unreason, except where it has empirical effects, or contradicts scientific findings. Other than that, live and let live, and accept that science cannot replace philosophy, any more than a hammer can replace a knife.

I concur with this. Philosophy is definitely not my thing, but neither is tai-chi or meditation.

DublinEvents wrote:

God created us to test us and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose.

If earth is the Crystal Maze, does that mean God is Richard O'Brian?

Scofflaw

DublinEvents wrote:

Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

Well, we're amazingly bad at it. Very poor design, must try harder next time.

regards,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, we're amazingly bad at it. Very poor design, must try harder next time.

regards,
Scofflaw

Indeed. If that was god's plan then he really ought have been a bit clearer about it as up to now we've not been doing such a good job.

DublinEvents if god designed the universe (and us) to live in peace and harmony and all of that, then why do you think things have gone so spectacularly wrong, with a century of war and bloodshed behind us and this one starting off with more wars and killing? Why would a god have designed a world capable of such horrors at all, some of these horrors and atrocities committed in his name? Unless he's not a benevolent god after all but either an uncaring or downright malevelont entity? How do you reconcile the very obvious contradictions?

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

You're either willfully misunderstanding me or you're never gonna get it. Your tone is becoming quite trying. How about you give a blanket "I don't respect other peoples opinions" comment and you can save time with all the little dismissive comments sprinkled through out. And if you don't stop I'll just start insulting right back, k?

There is nothing to get .. you are talking out if your rear end. I dont really care if you find that insulting or not .. your posts are full of 'sighs' and sarcastic comments. How you can ever comment on a persons tone is beyond me. Work on your own posting style and you might not get what you give.

Zillah wrote:

I wasn't talking about improving philosophy, I was talking about bypassing it altogether. Things like human rights, legal systems, equality and all that, those kind of things can be done simply by sitting down and getting right to it. Arguably thats a form of "philosophy", in which case its a form I can live with. A lot of things about human rights and equality however came about because of nonesense about souls and God, that kind of stuff can be tackled much better outside a paradigm of illusions.

Of course its philosophy when people talk about these kind of things. Philosophy is done by everyone not just by professional philosophers and it is essential and cant be done better or faster or whatever other cracked notions you have.

Zillah wrote:

Medieval England believed that the king ruled by God's will, and hence he was treated with absurd levels of repects and people acted as if he had the authority of God. Thats the sort of insane silliness that abstract philosophical models can lead to. Burning jews, burning witches, burning heretics. Burning based on nonesense. That'd certainly be an awful way to go.

eh .. that is a daft assessment. Philosophical ideas can lead to trouble of course but they also lead to the solutions to these problems. Philosophy is about making sense of existence .. it covers all areas of knowledge. I think you are having problems understanding what it actually is.

Zillah wrote:

Whats essential about it? You've consistently ignored my requests for any answer rather than questions. You just kind of pretended that question didn't happen above.

see above or else do some basic reading. It should be self evident.

Zillah wrote:

And I don't think you're in any position to talk about the scientific paradigm, you've already shown you don't understand falsifiability and you previously claimed that "in all likelyhood" your sentience would magically reform in a new self sustaining energy pattern free of the brain and body.*

*I think this was you a couple weeks ago. If not, disregard.

yes thats nice .. just try and undermine me by misrepresenting me. Listen I know exactly what falsifiability is .. and unlike you I have read Popper. The comment you are refering to is not what I said. I never said in all likelyhood. What I did say is that nobody knows for sure what is gonna happen when we die. More than likely we are just dead but we can all hope .. most people do have an irrational hope that they will continue after they die. Its quite a human thing to have.

Zillah wrote:

Oh yes, very mature. I have a life outside boards, its fun and full of stuff. I have no problem with sloppy behaviour, just sloppy belief. I do stupid irrational things all the time, because I want to. But I'm under no illusions as to whats underpinning it all.

Let me guess .. you work with or study computing or IT. Your pastimes are #1 Gaming and #2 clocking up an enormous postcount on boards.ie That leaves loads of time for other sort of activities such as going on the piss once in a while. You need perspective that only life can provide.

Zillah wrote:

Of course it can. Explain one scenario in your life that can't?

Really lol! you can attempt to explain something .. maybe even everything .. in a scientific way but that doesnt mean that science can fully exlpain or account for it. Take love for instance .. you might try and use certain evolutionary, anthropological, psychological and neuroscientific arguments to explain what it is. That doesn mean that those sciences can fully account for the experience of love .. they are theories that try and explain different aspects of it, that is all.

Zillah wrote:

Ok. "If one man has a soul, then it is objectively wrong to kill him, because he is your spiritual equal." People could play around with that statement for days with philosophy, but what does it achieve?

Of course people could play around with that statemen for days .. it doesnt make it good or worthwhile philosophy.

Zillah wrote:

In the long run people might work out a system of morality whereby killing someone is wrong. But wouldn't it be so much more expedient and accurate to realise that such morality is not based on magical extradimensional factors, but is in a fact a very tangible result of evolutionary psychology? Its the jet engine you see.

Evolutionary psychology is far and away the most controversial part of psychology. Many psychologists dont think it even should be considered part of psychology because it is too 'unscientific' .. it has quite a lot of problems with that term you love so much .. falsifiability. Try actually understanding a discipline before you go basing a worldview on it.

Zillah wrote:

Memetics are at least in theory falsifiable. Doesn't mean it will ever happen, its a very very delicate kind of topic to attack. The best way to demonstrate "potentially falsifiable" is with an example of whats not. God. Any statements about God are completely redundant because we can never ever in any way shape or form be sure that God doesn't exist. Until God appears in the sky and makes some proclamations then any discussion on the nature of God is futile, it achieves nothing that can't be achieved in better ways (like the above morality).

Why is it a delicate topic? Either something is falsifiable or not .. potentially falsifiable is just sophistry. We cant tell the future just yet.

Zillah wrote:

It doesn't mean that everyone who talks about memetics is being scientific about it, and to be honest I'm only passingly familiar with it. I havn't read Popper, although I'm planning to. Its possible he's indugled inphilosophy rather than science

Well since you so obsessed with the scientific paradigm I would consider Popper essential reading and also Kuhn the guy who invented the word paradigm. You might get an idea of how important the philosophical underpinnings of science are.

Zillah wrote:

Ah, the old "I'm so much better than you and hence I'm running away" parting shot.

I'm afriad not Zillah .. What I did realize is that we are never going to agree so whats the point in arguing .. I have a full time job and i'm trying to do a masters .. I barely get half an hour to myself a day and I dont really like wasting it on you. So forgive me if it takes me some time to reply to you again.

Tar.Aldarion

I decided to read all this, to see who I think is right.
Not that Playboys posts are perfect, but I can't follow Zillah's at all. I'm sorry, but they seem to be nonsense.
I'll pick out my favourite. I don't have much time, I have more Electromagnetic theory to study.

Sigh.

A jet engine can make a plane go faster than a propeller. That doesn't mean that all planes ever automatically used jet engines.

Now imagine we're arguing about what we should use to make our planes go. You're arguing that propellers let the forces of the allies bomb Germany into submission, and we should therefore use them. I'm arguing that jet engines could do the same thing, but better, and just because they didn't have jets at their disposal then doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better off if they did.

Does that clear it up for you?

This, W.R.T. philosophy? Lol.
Not to be disrespectful, but what!?
Also, to say something could progress us faster than philosophy makes no sense.

Why do you think that science, which got everything else so right, go it wrong this time?

That's not true, science gets things wrong over and over and over, it's just becoming less wrong as time goes on(We hope.).
Also, all science is based on a single presumption, this comes under the realm of philosophy though.


Why do you think philosophy is taught at university Zillah? Do you think philosophy is totally pointless?
Philosphy has advanced science,reasoning, logic, mathematics, ethics, medical ethics etc.
Did you know that in other European countries you do Philosophy as a subject with physics?
Also,
http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/phph.shtml
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ppox/teaching/badegree.html

Zombrex

DublinEvents wrote:

We are surrounded by clues that force us to think that all that we see around us could not have been the result of randomness that science seems to propose with such conviction.

Grown

Science does not propose that all around us (I assume you mean life) is a result of randomness. Please read up on the various scientific theories such as evolution before you misrepresent them.

DublinEvents wrote:

The birth of the universe was not a random event at all.

Who said it was? Science certainly never has.

DublinEvents wrote:

God created us to test us

That doesn't make much sense since God can see the future (I assume you accept this) and therefore it would not be impossible for Him to test us since He would already know the result before He created us.

If God created the universe, and God can see the future, we can never be or do something other than what God knew we would do when He created the universe, the universe that eventually lead to us.

Its a paradox.

DublinEvents wrote:

and He has left ample signs around us so we can figure out our true purpose.

Actually, if God exists, He has gone out of his way to make it look like He doesn't. Which seems a bit strange, does it not.

DublinEvents wrote:

Our purpose is to acknowledge God's existence, obey His commands and create peace and harmony in this world and put an end to bloodshed, suffering and injustice.

What are you talking about? God loves bloodshed and suffering. Read the Old Testament and find me a book that doesn't have God or Gods people the Israelites, butchering and raping across the land.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Did you know that in other European countries you do Philosophy as a subject with physics?

Which is why science used to be called natural philosophy, I guess...

Zillah

Playboy wrote:

The comment you are refering to is not what I said. I never said in all likelyhood.

Lies! Don't make baby Jesus cry.

Playboy wrote:

Yes they are all types of energy to which I'm refering. If energies such as these can arrange themselves in such a way so that I can exist as a concious being then in all likliehood at my death these energies can be incorporated into a new system that forms a different type of experience.

Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

Let me guess .. you work with or study computing

Nope.

or IT.

Nope.

Your pastimes are #1 Gaming

Gaming is among my pastimes, yes. Its quite common for my demographic you'll find.

and #2 clocking up an enormous postcount on boards.ie

Enormous is hardly the word for it. It averages to about 2 posts a day. Oh noes! Surely boards will die at my massive denial of service attack!

My part time job, which I am at now, provides me with an internet connection and a significiant period in which to use it.

Take love for instance .. you might try and use certain evolutionary, anthropological, psychological and neuroscientific arguments to explain what it is. That doesn mean that those sciences can fully account for the experience of love .. they are theories that try and explain different aspects of it, that is all.

All the things you mention explain love quite well. I don't need a philosopher to explain it any more. I can have the real world basis for it explained, and I can experience it. Or perhaps I could read some poetry about it.

Where does philosophy help with love?

Well since you so obsessed with the scientific paradigm I would consider Popper essential reading

I'm getting some Popper for Christmas

You might get an idea of how important the philosophical underpinnings of science are.

Like I said earlier, there are some elements of philosophy I can accept, like the kind of stuff that says "Why should we do science?", "What makes one thing scientific and something else not". Those things are more common sense than philosophy. Its when people start talking bollox about God or souls then I turn on my scoff-o-matic.

So forgive me if it takes me some time to reply to you again.

With baited breath!

Tar Aldarion wrote:

Why do you think philosophy is taught at university Zillah?

People like the ancient Greeks too much?

Not to be disrespectful, but what!?
Also, to say something could progress us faster than philosophy makes no sense.

A lot of modern understanding was formed by various orders of christian monks over the last millenia or so. Mendel, the father of genetics for example. These religious men had the time, and above all the education, to start us on the scientific road. Same thing with the Greeks and Romans. It was the rich educated classes that were able to do mathematics and science. They just all happened to do philosophy aswell and the whole lot got mixed up. If you boil God, souls and other baseless silliness out of the curriculum you're left with science, common sense and logic.

Tar.Aldarion

Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

They look like different words to me.

Zillah

Saved by sloppy spelling

Playboy

Zillah wrote:

Lies! Don't make baby Jesus cry.



Tut tut. Sounds fairly conclusive to me. That'd be the sloppy philospher's habits coming through...

Haha ..well i'll concede the 'all likelihood' bit but its still taken out of context. Musings on what could happen after death and saying that something will happen after death are two very different things. I did not say that they would be incorporated like you indicated earlier but that in all likelihood they could be incorporated into a system that experiences again. If it happens once it is possible for it to happen again. Nothing too irrational about that and i did go on say either later in that post or that thread that that it was wishful thinking.

Scofflaw

Why not take a concrete example or two?

1. What does science tell us we should do if we are offered a bribe to allow a crime to take place?

2. What does science tell us we should do if our wife's cousin starts coming on to us?

Microscopes at the ready...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Behave in a fashion that is most likely to result in reproduction of your genes.


I just know people that haven't read Dawkins are gonna take that up wrong.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Behave in a fashion that is most likely to result in reproduction of your genes.

Not at all! Science merely tells us that we are likely to behave in a fashion that is most likely to result in reproduction of our genes. It is observational, not normative-prescriptive. Tsk tsk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

We have had a linguistic miscommunication! I used "should" in the probabilistic fashion. For example:

- Do you think he will say yes?
- He should, yeah.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

1. What does science tell us we should do if we are offered a bribe to allow a crime to take place?

2. What does science tell us we should do if our wife's cousin starts coming on to us?

Scoff,

Shouldn't your questions be in the PI forum?

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Science merely tells us that we are likely to behave in a fashion that is most likely to result in reproduction of our genes.

Can't it also warn us the of the disastrous outcome of a society rife with bribery and corruption?
Hmm. Or maybe that's "history" not science....

Zillah

This thread is hence forth the After Hours of AA..

aidan24326

Zillah you are a bit too dismissive of philosophy for my liking. The great philosophers have had very significant influence on the way we think whether you like it or not. Philosophy has it's place alongside science, they are not diametrically opposed like science and religion. There was a reason why the original scientists were also philosophers, they were thinkers first and foremost.

Zombrex

I think the point Zillah is trying to make (in a bit of a round about way ) is that philiosophy, most of the time, is of bullsh!t, from a partical point of view.

Now that doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

Its just that people who appear to have problems with science not telling them what they want to hear often tend to move towards philiosophy to provide "answers", often claiming that science is incapable of answering their questions.

The point is that philiosophy is just as incapable of answering the questions (more so in fact), but because pretty much anything goes in philiosophy they can think they have found answers when really all they have is opinions that please them.

There is no significant truth in philiosophy external to the human imagination. If some recongises this then they will be fine. If on the other hand if someone, while searching for these external truths to affirm that what they believe or want to believe is correct, retreats into philiosophy because science is not providing the answers they want, then they are actually retreating away from the truth, not moving towards it.

The example often used, and I think mentioned on this thread, is that of emotion, specifically "love". The claim that science cannot explain "love" is often branded about. The fact is that science can actually explain "love", but the explination is not nearly as poetic, or romantic, as some would like or need it to be.

So they reject this answer, and retreat into the philiosophical musings on love and relationships (Plato's egg, for example). These musing are far more romantic sounding, far more "wonderous" than the scientific answer of chemical reactions in the brain as a result of evolution. But are they any more "true"? No, not from an external point of view.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

I think the point Zillah is trying to make (in a bit of a round about way ) is that philiosophy, most of the time, is of bullsh!t, from a partical point of view.

Now that doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

Its just that people who appear to have problems with science not telling them what they want to hear often tend to move towards philiosophy to provide "answers", often claiming that science is incapable of answering their questions.

The point is that philiosophy is just as incapable of answering the questions (more so in fact), but because pretty much anything goes in philiosophy they can think they have found answers when really all they have is opinions that please them.

There is no significant truth in philiosophy external to the human imagination. If some recongises this then they will be fine. If on the other hand if someone, while searching for these external truths to affirm that what they believe or want to believe is correct, retreats into philiosophy because science is not providing the answers they want, then they are actually retreating away from the truth, not moving towards it.

The example often used, and I think mentioned on this thread, is that of emotion, specifically "love". The claim that science cannot explain "love" is often branded about. The fact is that science can actually explain "love", but the explination is not nearly as poetic, or romantic, as some would like or need it to be.

So they reject this answer, and retreat into the philiosophical musings on love and relationships (Plato's egg, for example). These musing are far more romantic sounding, far more "wonderous" than the scientific answer of chemical reactions in the brain as a result of evolution. But are they any more "true"? No, not from an external point of view.

I dont even know where to start with that. And as much as I'd like to get into a really time consuming debate with you about philosophy again I really dont have the time. Maybe repost it in the philosophy forum for a discussion there?

Tar.Aldarion

Suuuure it was. Dannie is a very philosophical man. :P

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Can't it also warn us the of the disastrous outcome of a society rife with bribery and corruption?
Hmm. Or maybe that's "history" not science....

Scientific/economic analysis could probably tell us that a society rife with bribery and corruption will be less economically efficient than one without (indeed, it does so). It can probably also tell us that perceived quality of life is lower in such countries, and that trust in public institutions is lower.

Science can also tell us that in a mostly honest society, you personally, if not caught, will benefit from taking bribes.

What it cannot tell is us whether any of those are bad things. In fact, science by itself can never lead to a better life, because it is not prescriptive. It can analyse causal factors, but cannot say what should or should not be done.

Interestingly, there are rare cases of people who lack emotions. These people are entirely operated by logic, utterly dispassionate, and entirely incapable. They cannot even get up in the morning, because there is no volition. That is science - it has no volition of its own. Science is a tool of enquiry, not of discourse.

cordially,
Scofflaw