Moderators: nickj, Lady of Mystery, Mandrake, bananafish, support
nickj wrote:SamGurney wrote:Well, before that, I didn't doubt science's validity and merits and acheivements and intelligence- but if that is what most scientists think, scientists have seriously gone down in intellectual dignity.
The funny thing is that from the same source of the above Chaplin quote, he also said 'science and progress will lead to all men's happiness'... My understanding of scientific protocol, actually isn't too bad. I can question science because I am secure that regardless of any empiricism, within my reality it has value. But that is the point, I actually know at least something about science- from reading that, you clearly know nothing about philosphy.
Because if you did, you would notice that science and philosphy are not at all two different things at all. Science is one approch- one out of many, science is A philosphy: it questions what reality is and how life works- but it has different views from other philosophical ones. The fact is that science does not magically jump around questions epistemological and metaphysical in nature, it is as subject to them as any appraoch to philosophy. Personally, I believe there is much to be found in trying to reconcile empiricism and rationalism and none of that gain can be earned if one is dogmatic and does not understand what other people's points even are.
I cannot be bothered to explain my philosophical beliefs at this present moment because dogma makes it ardous. But the point is that I use logic and reasoning to arrive at these conclusions, Philosophers are not just stoners who eat shrooms and make wild guesses about things.
Sorry, I wrote that after a couple of glasses of wine, I didn't mean to seem so dogmatic and dismissive of philosophy as I did and what I wrote is certainly not representative of the views of most scientists (Jean Eugene Roberts; I wasn't suggesting that we try to suppress our urge to believe, that would make life quite tricky, I was simply noting that it was a feature of the human condition that we are set up to believe things that seem logical without need for much evidence).
You are, of course, right; science developed from metaphysical and epistemological philosophy and combined logic with empirical evidence to produce a new field of human endeavour. Its existence does not lessen the validity of any field of philosophy, it simply advances a couple in slightly different directions.
I would say, though, that if two philosophies (and I will regard science as a philosophy as you suggest) deal with the same subject, considerations of relativism must come second to the existence of evidence. Until evidence is present, two different theories can be studied with equal validity, but once evidence is gained which supports one or other theory, the other must, necessarily, lose authority. This is what I meant by my post and is the way that science works; a lot of the theoretical physics being conducted on the nature of matter, for example is more in the realm of higher level metaphysical philosophy than science at the moment as there is little evidence available and so several different theories exist in parallel.
I don't think you are a shroom gobbling stoner, please don't think I'm as dogmatic as my last post appears!
Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:SamGurney wrote:Now where were we... something about santa christmas..
Father Christmas.
And I didn't notice you complaining about pervishness when you wanted to sit on his lap.
SamGurney wrote:although, he is welcome to give me presents, that I can't complain about.
SamGurney wrote:Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:SamGurney wrote:although, he is welcome to give me presents, that I can't complain about.
SamGurney wrote:I hate hypocrites, and people who complain.
Ted wrote:Black Peter, I think.
EDIT: Yes. A bit racist these days, I think. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests