Heresy!

Playboy

pH wrote:

I'm ignoring all your philosophical insights into quantum mechanics, suffice to say you don't understand it, and the philosophy adds nothing to it.

lol ... please point out the areas on which I am having a problem with. I would love to see you try.

pH

If you want to start a thread on Philosophical insights into Quantum theory then please do. A drawn-out discussion on your understanding this is not of interest to me.

What is of interest as I've pointed out a number of times is :

Playboy wrote:

There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot;

However, we're still appear to be no closer to seeing one of these questions and its answer. Will such a question and answer be forthcoming in the near future?

Obni

Playboy wrote:

I am really amazed that you and pH feel like you have to insult people. Am I to assume that these digs are aimed at me. Why do ye continue to knock philosophy without knowing much about it. Ye are no better than the hacks who attack science without knowing anything about it.

First of all, there's a gulf between throwing what is really a very mild gibe into the cut and thrust of debate, and simply insulting people. A bit of schadenfreude at the gloomy employment prospects of graduates of any arts or humanities discipline such as philosophy, media studies, or biblical studies, is standard fare among those of an engineering bent. No direct assault or your sensibilites was intended. However, as you find the gentlest of mockery so offensive, I shall refrain from using any in future when responding to your posts.

If you examine anything I have written on this forum, you will not find a single instance of my knocking philosophy. Thank you, by the way, for assuming I don't know much about it. Very courteous. Much better than insulting people.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

No, the answer to an unanswerable question is that there is no answer. And it is perfectly possible for science to come to that conclusion. You are "loading" the statement with the idea that all questions must have answers. They don't.

See my post about blue dragons breath.

Not at all! I am pointing to the fact that if you define science as something able to answer questions then unanswerable questions lie outscience QED. See my words above. They are quite clear.

Furthermore it IS possible to conclude that an answer exists but one can not determine what that answer is. Take "does life exist in distant galaxies" the answer to that can clearly be yes or no. Now we may well be extinct as a race before the answer may be determined. It is possible to determine that answer.

My point is that YOUR definition of science contains within it limitations as to what science can do.

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

But what if I said I think oranges are the best fruit in the world? Is that statement true or false? Can you scientifically verify if it is or not? Oranges in reality are my favourite fruit so the statement I think Oranges are the best fruit in the world is true for me.

Do you supply the same standard of "if it is true for me than it exists" to atoms? To atomic bombs? To astrology?

The point of your counter argument above evades me. You mention falsification of an opinion about oranges. clearly this is an area for social scientists. it is not a question of "truth". that is for philosophy. But to suggest that the constructivist model cf the thread on philosophy of science you keep referering to is somehow more valid is really pushing the envelope.

Playboy

ISAW wrote:

Do you supply the same standard of "if it is true for me than it exists" to atoms? To atomic bombs? To astrology?

The point of your counter argument above evades me. You mention falsification of an opinion about oranges. clearly this is an area for social scientists. it is not a question of "truth". that is for philosophy. But to suggest that the constructivist model cf the thread on philosophy of science you keep referering to is somehow more valid is really pushing the envelope.

Is there a truth value in a subjective statement. Can a subjective statement be true or false. Why would I apply that standard to atomic bombs or astrology? Why would the truth value of a subjective statement concern the social sciences?

Obni

Playboy wrote:

But what if I said I think oranges are the best fruit in the world? Is that statement true or false? Can you scientifically verify if it is or not? Oranges in reality are my favourite fruit so the statement I think Oranges are the best fruit in the world is true for me.

Can science definitively answer the question of an orange being the best fruit in the world? Absolutely not.
It can answer lots of questions about the components of the fruit, about how it stimulates the senses with taste, texture, smell, and colour, and even perhaps how happy associations with oranges in your childhood increase your enjoyment, as may a vitamin C or zinc deficiency. None of which demonstrates or rebuffs your claims for the worthy fruit.

Would you not agree that your claim is based on a number of elements of first-order knowledge?
Oranges are refreshingly high in liquid content.
Oranges are sweet.
Oranges have a vibrant colour suggesting health and vitality.
Oranges have a powerful pleaseant smell.
Oranges are relatively cheap and freely available.
Eating food we believe to be good for us improves our sense of well-being.
And so on...

Your choosing to proclaim them as the best, rather than simply very good, could be based on personal historical experience, or lack of experience with say a passion fruit.

I see nothing that tells me we've strayed from the realms of scientific endeavour.

Playboy

Obni wrote:

First of all, there's a gulf between throwing what is really a very mild gibe into the cut and thrust of debate, and simply insulting people. A bit of schadenfreude at the gloomy employment prospects of graduates of any arts or humanities discipline such as philosophy, media studies, or biblical studies, is standard fare among those of an engineering bent. No direct assault or your sensibilites was intended. However, as you find the gentlest of mockery so offensive, I shall refrain from using any in future when responding to your posts.

If you examine anything I have written on this forum, you will not find a single instance of my knocking philosophy. Thank you, by the way, for assuming I don't know much about it. Very courteous. Much better than insulting people.

I might be a little sensitive due to the rudeness of pH so maybe I overreacted. I apologise.

Playboy

pH wrote:

If you want to start a thread on Philosophical insights into Quantum theory then please do. A drawn-out discussion on your understanding this is not of interest to me.

Those personal philosophical insights into Quantum are not personal at all. They are actively debated within the scientific community if you bothered to do a bit of research.

pH wrote:

However, we're still appear to be no closer to seeing one of these questions and its answer. Will such a question and answer be forthcoming in the near future?

Way Beyond Science

Perhaps the most fascinating of reader responses were the numerous questions that are, by broad consensus, outside the domain of science. A few examples: Is there a god? What happened before the Big Bang? What happens after death? What is the nature of evil? Is the universe infinite? Are there realms of consciousness or reality that we do not normally perceive?

Science addresses only those questions that can be answered by reproducible observations, controlled experiments, and theory guided by mathematical logic. This distinction between scientific and nonscientitfic inquiry, though sometimes blurred, is neither frivolous nor arbitrary.

Science can reveal if a painting is old, but it cannot determine if the painting is beautiful. It may be used to deduce the origins of the physical universe, but it cannot rationalize why we are here to ponder its existence. Many of the most important questions we face-What is the meaning of life? Whom should I marry? Is there a God?-thus lie outside its domain. Such a realization led economist and philosopher Kenneth Boulding to remark, only partly in jest: "Science is the art of substituting unimportant questions that can be answered for important questions that cannot."

A few questions that lie at the boundaries of science are more difficult to classify. Scientists are divided, for example, regarding questions that several readers proposed regarding extrasensory perception, precognition, numerology, and psychokinesis. While many researchers lump these ideas into the broad category of pseudoscience, reproducible experiments can be performed to test individuals who claim to possess such abilities.

Taken from here

Playboy

Obni wrote:

Can science definitively answer the question of an orange being the best fruit in the world? Absolutely not.
It can answer lots of questions about the components of the fruit, about how it stimulates the senses with taste, texture, smell, and colour, and even perhaps how happy associations with oranges in your childhood increase your enjoyment, as may a vitamin C or zinc deficiency. None of which demonstrates or rebuffs your claims for the worthy fruit.

Would you not agree that your claim is based on a number of elements of first-order knowledge?
Oranges are refreshingly high in liquid content.
Oranges are sweet.
Oranges have a vibrant colour suggesting health and vitality.
Oranges have a powerful pleaseant smell.
Oranges are relatively cheap and freely available.
Eating food we believe to be good for us improves our sense of well-being.
And so on...

Your choosing to proclaim them as the best, rather than simply very good, could be based on personal historical experience, or lack of experience with say a passion fruit.

I see nothing that tells me we've strayed from the realms of scientific endeavour.

I'm talking about the truth value of the subjective statement that I think oranges are the best fruit in the world. I'm not saying objectively that they are the best fruit in the world. I am saying that for me they are the best fruit in the world.

Playboy

In regards to questions that philosophy tries to answer with evidential support rather than unfounded personal opinion.

What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason? What is wisdom?
Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know? What is unknown? If knowledge is possible, what is known vs. unknown? How do we take what is "known" to extrapolate what is "unknown".
Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live? How is right and wrong defined?
What is reality, and what things can be described as real? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person?
What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art? Does true beauty exist? These five broad types of question are called analytical or logical, epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, and aesthetic respectively. They are not the only subjects of philosophical inquiry, and there are many overlaps between the categories which are subsumed within the discipline under the four major headings of Logic, Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology.

Taken from here

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

Is there a truth value in a subjective statement.

as i already pointed out that [truth is subjective] is the basis of your own arguments. You aoluy contradict yourself in this.

Can a subjective statement be true or false. Why would I apply that standard to atomic bombs or astrology? Why would the truth value of a subjective statement concern the social sciences?

QED. Tey answering some questions instead of asking more.
Here are some gems from Playboy(think about his comments on subjective knowledge):

I do believe there are other possible answers out there for phenomena other than science...

There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion....


I liked this [the above paragraph] analogy..

Do you even realise that the natural and social sciences owe its origins to philosophy and that the philosophers of Greece were the first great champions of mathematics (see his above quote on what social science has to do with anything on this)...

You however are not relavent becuase you have nothing to contribute.
(a wonderfull attribution to subjective knowledge)

Moral and ethical questions cannot be answered by science so they lie outside of science.
(while asking what lies outside science AND getting an answer)

Prove to me that opinion isn’t' knowledge.

To the last point I say "Feck off to philosophy. This is skeptics" Don't try to shift the burden of evidence. It is up to those claiming extraordinary things to supply evidence.

Playboy

ISAW wrote:

as i already pointed out that [truth is subjective] is the basis of your own arguments. You aoluy contradict yourself in this.

ISAW I don't know what your problem is or why you have trouble grasping something simple. There is a truth-value in a subjective statement. Everybody has personal knowledge about himself or herself that is true that science cannot verify. I know that my favourite fruit is oranges and I know that they are the best fruit in the world for me. I'm not saying that they are objectively the best fruit in the world for everybody. People can have a claim to self-knowledge. That point was in reply to wicknight who brought up the analogy of oranges. The point was in reference to a division between knowledge and opinion. Can opinion/belief be knowledge and how do we define knowledge? I provided links to the Theory of Justification in Epistemology to demonstrate that belief and opinion can be considered knowledge in the form of justified belief. Links that I think were ignored. How can you consider yourself a skeptic when you are unaware of what 'truth', 'knowledge', and 'reality' are and how they are defined? This should be the foundation for any form of skepticism. Descartes would be an example of this. "I think therefore I am" is according to Descartes the only thing we can know for sure. Everything else we think we know has to have this as its foundation. You have to doubt everything. Only that way can you gain knowledge.

>I do believe there are other possible answers out there for phenomena other than science...

I fail to see what’s wrong with this statement. I do 'believe' there is. The word 'believe' should indicate to you that this is a subjective statement and that it is a 'belief'. What is the purpose of reposting it?

>There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion....

I have answered this point already. Scroll up a couple of posts.

>I liked this [the above paragraph] analogy

Have you got a problem with me liking an analogy?

>Do you even realise that the natural and social sciences owe its origins to philosophy and that the philosophers of Greece were the first great champions of mathematics (see his above quote on what social science has to do with anything on this)...

Is there a problem with this statement? A bit of research on your part will prove me right. Try Plato and Aristotle. Plato's Academy had a phrase over it's entrance - you might find it interesting.

>You however are not relevant because you have nothing to contribute.
(a wonderful attribution to subjective knowledge)

pH insulted me and philosophy more than once and failed to contribute anything to the argument. I think it was a fair comment by me. Can you point out the problem you have with it to me please.

>Moral and ethical questions cannot be answered by science so they lie outside of science.
(while asking what lies outside science AND getting an answer)

I really don't understand this one. Moral and ethical questions do lie outside science. Tbh ISAW I don't think I have read one post by you in any thread that hasn’t confused me at some point. The points you make can be extremely ambiguous.

>Prove to me that opinion isn’t' knowledge

This is a fair point. I'm asking Wicknight to define knowledge and define opinion and tell me why there is an inseparable gap between the two. Again I provided links that proved me right. What Knowledge is is defined in epistemology, which happens to be part of philosophy.

ISAW wrote:

To the last point I say "Feck off to philosophy. This is skeptics" Don't try to shift the burden of evidence. It is up to those claiming extraordinary things to supply evidence.

I'm not making any extraordinary claims about anything. In fact it is vice versa. I consider the claim "that nothing lies outside science" to be an extraordinary claim. I asked for that claim to be backed up and then preceded to debate with the people who backed it up. I have been met with rudeness and jibes throughout the argument and finally you have told me to “feck off”. Nice manners some of ye guys have. And for the record I am a paid up member of the Irish skeptics society and attended the last lecture. I am also currently pursuing an education in Psychology at post-grad level so it is not like I am anti-science or anything. Some of ye need to relax and not get so defensive when having a friendly debate.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

But what if I said I think oranges are the best fruit in the world? Is that statement true or false? Can you scientifically verify if it is or not? Oranges in reality are my favourite fruit so the statement I think Oranges are the best fruit in the world is true for me.

It is possible to scientifically varify if you are lying or not, so it is possible to tell if the statement "I think oranges are the best fruit" is true.

But that is a million miles away from the truth value of "Oranges are the best fruit"

"I think" is a personal opinion, which as I have already said, is all that philosophy is based upon. There is no "truth" that can be reached from it.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

It is possible to scientifically varify if you are lying or not, so it is possible to tell if the statement "I think oranges are the best fruit" is true.

But that is a million miles away from the truth value of "Oranges are the best fruit"

You are missing the point. "I think" when applied to yourself has a truth value. It is opinion and it is also knowledge. Are you telling me that the way you feel is only opinion and not knowledge. You know how you feel.

Wicknight wrote:

"I think" is a personal opinion, which as I have already said, is all that philosophy is based upon. There is no "truth" that can be reached from it.

Tell me what is "truth" and how we arrive at it. Why is science "true" and philosophy not. "Truth" is one of the most complicated topics in philosophy and most agree that science does not arrive at "truth".

Tbh we could go around in circles forever. People in science usually use terms like "truth", "knowldege", and "reality" rather casually. They take for granted the definition of these terms without ever looking for a definition or exploring how the definitions are arrived at. These terms do not hold the concrete meaning and definition that most people think.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Are you telling me that the way you feel is only opinion and not knowledge.

Thats exactly what I am saying ... you don't know oranges are the best fruit in the world, you just think they are. It is opinion, and holds no weight or water outside of your own imagination. It is not a reflection of reality.

Playboy wrote:

Tell me what is "truth" and how we arrive at it. Why is science "true" and philosophy not. "Truth" is one of the most complicated topics in philosophy and most agree that science does not arrive at "truth".

Truth is what actually happened/happening/will happen. It is independent of human understanding. Science attempts to bring human understand as close to truth as it can go. But the limits are human, not science. Philosophy is completely dependent on the human imagination, and while I have nothing against philosophy, it is very limited in its ability to come to an understanding of the truth behind what actually happened It is more concerned with questions like what do we think happened/should have happened.

You are talking about truth in the context of human understand, ie how can we ever know what is true. You need to move out of the description of the universe based on the limits of the human mind, because the universe exists independently of the human mind.

If something happens, it happens independently of us understanding it happened.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Thats exactly what I am saying ... you don't know oranges are the best fruit in the world, you just think they are. It is opinion, and holds no weight or water outside of your own imagination. It is not a reflection of reality.

The term "best" in relation to fruit (and most other things) is a subjective term. There can be no objective best fruit. So when I say oranges are "the best fruit" it should be obvious in the statement that it is a subjective (well really there is no such thing as objective) appraisal of fruit. I know that I think oranges are the best fruit so that means that they are the best fruit for me. I have knowledge of the fact that I think oranges are the best fruit. I am not applying the term best to include everyone else's concept of what the best fruit is. It is like saying oranges are my favourite fruit. I know they are my favourite fruit. That statement is both my opinion and self-knowledge. It has every grounding in reality. The ultimate reality is your subjective experience of the world. It can argued that subjective experience is the only reality. "I think therefore I am".

Wikipedia wrote:

Subjective truths are those with which we are most intimately acquainted. That I like broccoli or that I have a pain in my foot are both subjectively true. Metaphysical subjectivism holds that all we have are such truths. That is, that all we can know about are, one way or another, our own subjective experiences. This view does not necessarily reject realism. But at the least it claims that we cannot have direct knowledge of the real world.

Wicknight wrote:

Truth is what actually happened/happening/will happen. It is independent of human understanding. Science attempts to bring human understand as close to truth as it can go. But the limits are human, not science. Philosophy is completely dependent on the human imagination, and while I have nothing against philosophy, it is very limited in its ability to come to an understanding of the truth behind what actually happened It is more concerned with questions like what do we think happened/should have happened.

You are talking about truth in the context of human understand, ie how can we ever know what is true. You need to move out of the description of the universe based on the limits of the human mind, because the universe exists independently of the human mind.

If something happens, it happens independently of us understanding it happened.

When you say "truth" is independent of human understanding you are in otherwords saying it is a metaphysical condition that we try and understand(which is only one theory of "truth"). So if we define science as empirically tested and verified knowledge then how can science be true if "truth" is a metaphysical condition?

You also say that the limitations are not science but human understanding. I fail to see the logic in this statement. Science is limited by human understanding. Science can only ever be what human understanding is. How can it transcend human understanding and if it did transcend it how can we still call it science as science is empirically tested and verified knowledge. The term empirically means that science is forever tied to our understanding of the world because if it is not then it is not science.

pH

Since this started out with ID vs Evolution, the daily show recently ran some very funny segments on this.

Clips are available on commonbits

What is commonbits?

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

ISAW I don't know what your problem is or why you have trouble grasping something simple. There is a truth-value in a subjective statement. Everybody has personal knowledge about himself or herself that is true that science cannot verify.

You are playing with the word "truth" here! If it can't be verified how can ity be shown to be true? I am not discussing philosophical "truth2 but scientific truth the sort that skeptics ask for evidence for. Otherwise we are in a philosophy argument. And that is better off in p[hilosophy.

Incidentally I intended no personal insult with the phrase "feck off to philosophy". If any was taken I withdraw it. I have been banned from another forum for stating a moderator was ignorant of the facts. Indeed by his post he was ignorant of them! He then told me to remind him when the two week ban was over. I did so and he ignored the ban. The supermoderators and admins have to date refused to unban me or deal with the issue. I place little faith in boards.ie being honest about their policies now. But "feck off" was not intended as an insult. I do not indulge in ad hominem. If you think I am having a poke at you I am not. I am pointing to what I see as logical contradictions in your stated position.
And I am not saying that because I was warned about it but I admit I would not have realised it if someone hadnt warned me.

Back to the argument:

I know that my favourite fruit is oranges and I know that they are the best fruit in the world for me. I'm not saying that they are objectively the best fruit in the world for everybody. People can have a claim to self-knowledge. That point was in reply to wicknight who brought up the analogy of oranges. The point was in reference to a division between knowledge and opinion. Can opinion/belief be knowledge and how do we define knowledge?

I provided links to the Theory of Justification in Epistemology to demonstrate that belief and opinion can be considered knowledge in the form of justified belief. Links that I think were ignored. How can you consider yourself a skeptic when you are unaware of what 'truth', 'knowledge', and 'reality' are and how they are defined? This should be the foundation for any form of skepticism.

You are doing to "knowledge" here what you just did to "truth". You are claiming knowledge can be socially negiotiated. I do not believe all knowledge is socially negotiated. If you want to believe Pi is equal to 3 then that is up to you but it is not mathematically correct.

Descartes would be an example of this. "I think therefore I am" is according to Descartes the only thing we can know for sure. Everything else we think we know has to have this as its foundation. You have to doubt everything. Only that way can you gain knowledge.

Descartes was a genius but most of what he wrote about science turned out to be wrong! Now you can claim that Newton was wrong if you want but the French already measured the curvature of the Earth showing Descartes vortex theory to be wrong

>I do believe there are other possible answers out there for phenomena other than science...

I fail to see what’s wrong with this statement. I do 'believe' there is. The word 'believe' should indicate to you that this is a subjective statement and that it is a 'belief'. What is the purpose of reposting it?

"What is true is what is true for you."- L Ron Hubbard father of Scientology
I dont find that very scientific.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/warhero/truth.htm
what is the true story there?

Have you got a problem with me liking an analogy?

No not at all. I may well believe that God, unicorns aliens etc. have infulence on us. But it is not a scientific form of evidence I look to when I look to religion etc. Therefore it is not for a scientific skeptics forum. It may well fit into philosophical scepticism but not skeptics.

>Do you even realise that the natural and social sciences owe its origins to philosophy and that the philosophers of Greece were the first great champions of mathematics (see his above quote on what social science has to do with anything on this)...

Is there a problem with this statement? A bit of research on your part will prove me right. Try Plato and Aristotle. Plato's Academy had a phrase over it's entrance - you might find it interesting.

"Let no one who is not a geometer enter". This is not stated in any literature which has come down to us earlier than a document from the middle of the 4th century AD which, therefore, was written about 750 years after Plato founded the Academy.

If you know about that then you must know about the genetic fallacy?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

You might also consider argument from authority.

pH insulted me and philosophy more than once and failed to contribute anything to the argument. I think it was a fair comment by me. Can you point out the problem you have with it to me please.

If he insulted you you should complain. I already pointed out the problem I have with it. Should I do so again?

>Moral and ethical questions cannot be answered by science so they lie outside of science.
(while asking what lies outside science AND getting an answer)

I really don't understand this one. Moral and ethical questions do lie outside science. Tbh ISAW I don't think I have read one post by you in any thread that hasn’t confused me at some point. The points you make can be extremely ambiguous.

Really? I thought I was usually quite clear. But lets not broaden the argument to all the posts I have ever made. Why not just point out five of thenm in skeptics and show the confusion? Start a thread entitled ISAWs confusing posts for that.

It is quite clear above what you commented on after you had asked a question and got an answer on it.

>Prove to me that opinion isn’t' knowledge

This is a fair point. I'm asking Wicknight to define knowledge and define opinion and tell me why there is an inseparable gap between the two. Again I provided links that proved me right. What Knowledge is is defined in epistemology, which happens to be part of philosophy.

If you claim that your opinion is correct and must be then how are you any different from somweone who believes in fire breathing dragons in his garage in spite of no evidence for them?

I'm not making any extraordinary claims about anything. In fact it is vice versa. I consider the claim "that nothing lies outside science" to be an extraordinary claim. I asked for that claim to be backed up and then preceded to debate with the people who backed it up. I have been met with rudeness and jibes throughout the argument and finally you have told me to “feck off”.

As it happens I happen to believe that there are other things than science. that is my opinion and I believe I am not going to change it. But I do not come to a skeptics forum and ask others to believe it.
AS to the "feck off" I apologised for it. I didn't think it was insulting but again that would only be my opinion. Appearently you think it was insulting. All I can say is sorry. It was only my opinion.

Nice manners some of ye guys have. And for the record I am a paid up member of the Irish skeptics society and attended the last lecture. I am also currently pursuing an education in Psychology at post-grad level so it is not like I am anti-science or anything. Some of ye need to relax and not get so defensive when having a friendly debate.

For your information I am not worked up at all. I have had some unfair treatment from boards.ie. I also have criticisms of scientists and psychologists. I do not feel attacked and actually have other things to worry about. Please continue to contribute. But there is a line between philosophy and skeptics. I am only pointing to where it might lie.

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

Tbh we could go around in circles forever.

Which is way I believe many skeptics will avoid the mental masturbation of philosophy of science threads.

People in science usually use terms like "truth", "knowldege", and "reality" rather casually. They take for granted the definition of these terms without ever looking for a definition or exploring how the definitions are arrived at. These terms do not hold the concrete meaning and definition that most people think.

This is true. Which is why scientists use mathematics and formal language in journals. I suggest in this forum you forget about the "truth" and concentrate on "evidence based claims". I do however find the history and philosophy of science really interesting.

robindch

Folks -- from a slightly wobbly start by the irrepressible and much-missed Turley, this thread has travelled through some interesting and worthwhile territory and topics -- thanks to all for their thought-provoking posts.

However, this Olympian standard slipped somewhat in recent days. Taking off my poster's hat and putting on my mod's hat briefly, I'd like to say that the Skeptics forum really isn't the place for four-letter words or disagreeable metaphors and I'd appreciate it if contributors who've used either could please edit their recent posts to bring them back up to the standards which have applied to date.

Much thanks.

Playboy

ISAW wrote:

You are playing with the word "truth" here! If it can't be verified how can ity be shown to be true? I am not discussing philosophical "truth2 but scientific truth the sort that skeptics ask for evidence for. Otherwise we are in a philosophy argument. And that is better off in p[hilosophy.

I think me playing with the notion of truth was relevant to the discussion, but point taken - this is a skeptics forum and the analogy has kinda gotten out hand. (I don't even like oranges )

ISAW wrote:

Incidentally I intended no personal insult with the phrase "feck off to philosophy". If any was taken I withdraw it. I have been banned from another forum for stating a moderator was ignorant of the facts. Indeed by his post he was ignorant of them! He then told me to remind him when the two week ban was over. I did so and he ignored the ban. The supermoderators and admins have to date refused to unban me or deal with the issue. I place little faith in boards.ie being honest about their policies now. But "feck off" was not intended as an insult. I do not indulge in ad hominem. If you think I am having a poke at you I am not. I am pointing to what I see as logical contradictions in your stated position.
And I am not saying that because I was warned about it but I admit I would not have realised it if someone hadnt warned me.

Fair enough .. it was a misinterpretation on my part.

ISAW wrote:

Descartes was a genius but most of what he wrote about science turned out to be wrong! Now you can claim that Newton was wrong if you want but the French already measured the curvature of the Earth showing Descartes vortex theory to be wrong.

Yes Descartes was proved wrong in a lot of things but the point was not in relation to his ontological argument or his vortex theory

ISAW wrote:

No not at all. I may well believe that God, unicorns aliens etc. have infulence on us. But it is not a scientific form of evidence I look to when I look to religion etc. Therefore it is not for a scientific skeptics forum. It may well fit into philosophical scepticism but not skeptics.

My apologies if i posted something that wasnt suited to the forum but since the discussion took a certain direction I thought the analogy was relevant and interesting.

ISAW wrote:

"Let no one who is not a geometer enter". This is not stated in any literature which has come down to us earlier than a document from the middle of the 4th century AD which, therefore, was written about 750 years after Plato founded the Academy.

I was unaware that that phrase did not appear in any literature till the 4th century. I will have to take up that point with some of my old classics lecturers. But are you trying to deny the point that I was making? Archimedes is one example.

ISAW wrote:

If he insulted you you should complain. I already pointed out the problem I have with it. Should I do so again?

So you have a problem with me reacting to what I considered an insult? Thats a little bit picky don't you think?

ISAW wrote:

Really? I thought I was usually quite clear. But lets not broaden the argument to all the posts I have ever made. Why not just point out five of thenm in skeptics and show the confusion? Start a thread entitled ISAWs confusing posts for that.

Maybe I will but I dont think many would be interested

ISAW wrote:

If you claim that your opinion is correct and must be then how are you any different from somweone who believes in fire breathing dragons in his garage in spite of no evidence for them?

ISAW there are many different types of opinions and beliefs. Your opinion about a dragon would be an unfounded personal opinion. Try looking at the theory of Justification. It might help claify what I mean.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I have knowledge of the fact that I think oranges are the best fruit.

I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, but the statement was not "I think oranges are the best in the world", (which has a very easy and verifiable truth/false value), the statement was "Oranges are the best fruit in the world" which is a statement with no possibility of truth behind it. It is these type of statements, which philosophy is full of, which you claim can provide a truth outside of science, but really cannot. Questions like "Is nuclear war wrong?" rather than "Do I think nuclear war is wrong", and "should women work?" rather than "Do I think women should work". So really by adding in the "I think.." you have fundamentally changed what we were talking about (questions or statements with no "correctness" only opinion) to questions about whether a person is lying or not when they express an opinion (something which has very little to do with the subject we started talking about).

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, but the statement was not "I think oranges are the best in the world", (which has a very easy and verifiable truth/false value), the statement was "Oranges are the best fruit in the world" which is a statement with no possibility of truth behind it. It is these type of statements, which philosophy is full of, which you claim can provide a truth outside of science, but really cannot. Questions like "Is nuclear war wrong?" rather than "Do I think nuclear war is wrong", and "should women work?" rather than "Do I think women should work". So really by adding in the "I think.." you have fundamentally changed what we were talking about (questions or statements with no "correctness" only opinion) to questions about whether a person is lying or not when they express an opinion (something which has very little to do with the subject we started talking about).

You are talking about ethical questions, which is only one section of philosophy. You might be surprised at how philosophers arrive at answers to ethical questions. If you believe that a philosopher just thinks that "nuclear war is wrong" then you are mistaken. You keep looking for scientific answers to all your questions. Just because you can’t apply a science methodology to the answer does not mean it isn’t an answer. It also doesn’t mean that the answer is only opinion. There is in Philosophy usually a general consensus on whether an answer is right or wrong. Science uses general consensus and peer review also to determine whether an answer is right or wrong. You keep looking at every piece of evidence through a scientific perspective; I tend to look at evidence through a philosophical perspective. It's just two different points of view. Philosophy like science has it's own way of answering and falsifying questions because it is fundamentally asking completely different types of questions.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

You are talking about ethical questions, which is only one section of philosophy.

I am talking about questions that have no correct/true answer. Ethical questions are just one type of these questions.

Playboy wrote:

If you believe that a philosopher just thinks that "nuclear war is wrong" then you are mistaken.

I don't believe that, but even if I did it would have no bearing on this discussion. How carefully a person ponders a question that has no correct answer doesn't change that fact.

Playboy wrote:

You keep looking for scientific answers to all your questions.

Only the questions that can be answered.

Playboy wrote:

Just because you can’t apply a science methodology to the answer does not mean it isn’t an answer. It also doesn’t mean that the answer is only opinion.

Yes it does. Please show me a question that has a correct/true answer that is beyond science but that can still have a correct answer.

Playboy wrote:

There is in Philosophy usually a general consensus on whether an answer is right or wrong.

Well that would depend on the question I guess, but if that answer cannot be demonstrated correct in a scientific fashion then it is just opinion of individuals, which has no bearing on reality.

Playboy wrote:

Science uses general consensus and peer review also to determine whether an answer is right or wrong.

No, science uses verifiability which is a lot different than someone simply agreeing with your opinion. The whole point of science is that it should be possible for anyone to independently verify the answer.

Playboy

Tbh Wicknight this debate is going nowhere now. You don't seem to have acquainted yourself with any philosophy based questions or answers. You show no understanding of a philosopher’s method of enquiry. You still use words like "true" and "knowledge" even though I have provided you with links that should at the least make you question the validity of those concepts. You still operate within a scientific framework and context when approaching every question. Your notions of truth and knowledge are scientific notions, they are not universal. When you ask me to provide a philosophical question that is "correct" or "true" you are really asking me an impossible question because you want me to provide you with a philosophical question and answer that is verified in a scientific way. If that were possible then it wouldn’t be a philosophical question or answer, it would be scientific. Maybe an example from earlier will help. Descartes came to the conclusion that "cogito ergo sum", which would be considered a philosophical truth. He used a philosophical method of enquiry to arrive at this conclusion called methodological skepticism. Now I don't want to go posting long excerpts from philosophy sites to demonstrate what Descartes was trying to do or why he was doing it. I'll leave up to you to do a bit of research if you are interested.

Wikipedia wrote:

Philosophers typically frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Frege and Russell increasingly using formal systems, such as predicate calculus, and then work towards a solution based on critical reading and reasoning. Like Socrates, they search for answers through discussion, responding to the arguments of others, or careful personal contemplation. Philosophers often debate the relative merits of these methods. For example, they may ask whether philosophical "solutions" are objective, definitive, and say something informative about reality. On the other hand, they may ask whether these solutions give greater clarity or insight into the logic of language, or rather act as personal therapy. Philosophers seek justification for the answers to their questions.

"Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge; or
Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method."

We are going in a neverending merry go round because we are both being skeptical in different ways. We are unlikely to come to come to any common ground while we hold these different positions.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Tbh Wicknight this debate is going nowhere now. You don't seem to have acquainted yourself with any philosophy based questions or answers. You show no understanding of a philosopher’s method of enquiry.

Actually I am quite familar with the philospher's method of enquiry, and as such I am also aware that one corner stones of philosphey is to ask questions who's answers are never correct or incorrect. That is kinda the point, philosphey is an infinate study. If it wasn't the majority of philosphical questions would have "correct" answers by now. But I can take the most simple philosphoical statement and argue against it, precisely because the statement is not provable correct or incorrect.

As such it is impossible in philosphey to ever "know" something is true, only to agree with an opinion or argument.

Now yes you may argue it is impossible to "know" something is true in science as well, but at least science exisits in reality (you can drop a stone and watch gravity, you cannot examine the idea that love is eternal).

Science provides a method to examine reality, and the point of it is to search for a truth that is, theorectically at least, reachable. The point of philospohy is to move towards an idea of truth that is actually infinately far away. Questions in science can have correct answers, even if humans cannot figure them out or understand them, where as questions in philosphy never can, which isn't a limitation of philosphoy, it is infact one of the corner stones of it.

But like you said, this is going no where ... anyway interesting discussion.

(apologies for spelling, in work and rushing this post)

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to explain?

Just curious ...

and

robindch wrote:

> Obni: " Nothing lies outside science."

...is not the same as:

> science can answer everything

I think the general question being discussed is better phrased as: Are there areas of general human concern and meaningful questions arising from them which can't be adequately addressed by science?

The answer here is yes. Examples have been given.

By science I mean as defined by Obni, robincdh on this thread: empirically verified knowledge. By adequately I mean to the general satisfaction of those asking the questions.

The question is important because science appears to have lost a lot of prestige in recent years. Questions that should be addressed by science (by society at large, not merely scientists) are not. Instead, the points of view of various vested interests dominate.

Others may possibly disagree with that, however I think most will agree that the position of science is not helped by unsubstantiated claims made on behalf of it. Science does what science does. It is not knocking science to say that it is limited to certain areas of concern.

There are ways of dealing with, say, Creationism, the topic of this thread, but first we must ditch the pseudo-philosophical garbage and deal with it in an honest fashion.

Zombrex

SkepticOne wrote:

Questions that should be addressed by science (by society at large, not merely scientists) are not. Instead, the points of view of various vested interests dominate.

Examples?

pH

SkepticOne wrote:

I think the general question being discussed is better phrased as: Are there areas of general human concern and meaningful questions arising from them which can't be adequately addressed by science?

The answer here is yes. Examples have been given.

I agree there are questions that cannot be adequately addressed (answered?) by science, but can they be answered by another means? Again we get into definitions, but please let's have an example question and answer.

We have a number of systems for arriving at these 'ought' questions, none of them providing answers in my view.

Democracy - 'ought' is derived by strength of numbers.
Religion - By the will of God
Ethics - By accepting various axioms (e.g The greatest good for the greatest number) ought questions can then be resolved.
etc.

The problem with these systems is that if you question or do not accept the foundation then all the answers then also fall away.

A lot of pseudoscience practicioners will argue the same about the scientific method.

After the recent Lancet Homeopathy paper we had this:

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm