 |
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
quote:
quit trying to poke holes in my argument with meaningless quibbles |
That post wasn't attempting to poke any holes in your arguments (except in-so-far "ask any scientist" is considered an argument), but to point out the definitional issue. Definitional "quibbles" are not necessarily meaningless - I was wondering what crack you were on re: observational science for a full page before you clarified your usage (which, as said, is news to me).
Incidentally, your usage of "science" to mean only observational and experimental science may be the common definition where you're from, but it isn't where I'm from. I do find it annoying when people, confronted with a definition different from their own, say theirs is the correct one, period. |
But what has been revolutionarily successful is what you call observational science. As I have stated numerous times, it was not philosophy that split the atom, nor mathematics that developed the oregin of the species. Both philisophy and mathematics existed far before 'observational' science. But it was observational science which had the triumphs that western society is built on. It is observational science that is so useful. And it is observational science which is generally held to be correct.
If by scientific you mean that you worked it out philisophcially, than the meaning of something being scientific and thus being like the science that gives you cell phones and computers is lost. Because philosophy is, as has been seen, often wrong (got to go)
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Most people consider what science has discovered to be a success. If you consider that philosophy is trying to explian are universe. As is science (as it came out of natural philosophy).
Science has been very successful (very few people do not beleive in science), while many disagere with philosophers of all sorts. If you want to think of it one way, science is the most commonly held philosophy (well people claim to hold, people get confused over it).
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Most people consider what science has discovered to be a success. If you consider that philosophy is trying to explian are universe. As is science (as it came out of natural philosophy).
|
Philosophy |= natural philosophy.
The aim of philosophy is not to explain the universe, that is precisely what science is there for. You'll note that natural philosophy was a term only strictly in use pre Newton, although the term is still in use, it'll usually refer to Earth sciences. In my experience, philosophy varies from person to person, literally it means "love of wisdom" which obviously is highly subjective. I take Wittgensteins view that philosophy is therapy, whereupon we're talking about religion, and philosophical arguments have validity. Bare in mind we can call it all "philosophy" but each concept is there in its own right and not to serve philosophy, hence some concepts have validity in given contexts, some dont. You wouldn't expect me to bring Plato's take on democracy in on this debate.
quote:
Science has been very successful (very few people do not beleive in science), while many disagere with philosophers of all sorts. If you want to think of it one way, science is the most commonly held philosophy (well people claim to hold, people get confused over it).
|
You cannot measure these things by popular perception. If you did, you would have to take each individual upon their own merits, instead of their field, in which case you're doing little more than geek celebrity worship. Because of the nature of science, there is (provisional) truth or falsehood in a given hypothesis that can be tested against empirical observations. In the categorical sense, philosophy is not like that, and lazy people tend not to like individual subjectivism as it promotes individual thought. But again, trying to compare the two in the same sense is doomed to failure through inconsistency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
But what has been revolutionarily successful is what you call observational science. |
Nah, it's mostly experimental science.  The terminology as I was taught it:
Experimental science: science based primarily on laboratory experiments; typical examples are chemistry and electromagnetics.
Observational science: science based primarily on passive observation; typical examples are astronomy and geology.
Needless to say, there's no hard border between the categories.
quote:
As I have stated numerous times, it was not philosophy that split the atom, nor mathematics that developed the oregin of the species. Both philisophy and mathematics existed far before 'observational' science. But it was observational science which had the triumphs that western society is built on. It is observational science that is so useful. And it is observational science which is generally held to be correct. |
I must confess I much more frequently meet people who doubt or disbelieve the results of observational (and experimental) science than ones who doubt those of mathematics.
It hardly needs saying that splitting the atom does not figure among the goals of mathematics or philosophy (in the modern sense). You might just as well fault painting for not having invented the novella.
Furthermore, saying that empirical science is superior to, or replaces, mathematics is absurd; without mathematics, modern science simply would not exist.
quote:
If by scientific you mean that you worked it out philisophcially, |
Just out of curiosity, whence your apparent belief that I do?
quote:
than the meaning of something being scientific and thus being like the science that gives you cell phones and computers is lost. |
When I think of cellphones and computers, I think of electrotechnics, I think of electromagnetics, of information theory, perhaps of capitalism. I do not think of empirical science as a whole. When the issue of "scientificness" pops up in daily life, it usually concerns the soft sciences. On the rare occasions I need speak of experimental/observational science as contrasted against mathematics/logic, I'll use words and phrases such as "empiricism", "empirical science", "experiementally verified".
I'm a bit surprised that while you want to sharply delineate science vs mathematics and philosophy, you apparently feel no need whatsoever to differentiate it from technology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
You'll find very few significant philosophers have a "peace and love" philosophy of human nature  . Science is, by it's very nature, very good at explaining the categorical objective but that is not the whole story of human existence. If you say that science depends on this objective internally consistent logical system, you cannot say the same of consciousness for example, which science will likely never be able to explain, though it can provide the basics via neuroscience (this is not just my view, hence philosophy has a big place in medical ethics).
But again I must ask why this artificial separation between the two? In my experience most of the animosity toward philosophy tends to be one of lack of, or mis-understanding, while from the scientists where they do understand the arguments there's this feeling of stealing ones fire, not to mention the religious persecutions, the feeling of progress and the notion of truth, all of which it is charged of the field of philosophy that it retards science, or has a negative effect. It is my contention that these charges are wholly erroneous and frankly childish.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 03-01-2005 at 21:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
 
|
Does consciousness fit within a categorical objectivism? Try testing it. On my desk I have a glass of merlot. The wine is red, and when I taste it it's rather fruity. I can describe that to you but my conscious experience of "red" or "fruity" may well be completely different to you, and since we cannot communicate those experiences we shall never know. Consciousness itself, to borrow from Husserl and David Chalmers an internally consistent logical systems, and from one logical system, one cannot make inferences about another. For example, though there may be a perfectly consistent logical system in which 1+1=3, we cannot understand that and our logical system holds that as "wrong" because they are coming at it from completely different premises. The incommunicability of consciousness renders it analogous.
quote:
Science is based of experiemnt and observation, philosophy is not. QED.
|
See above. The empiricalist view holds that all we know, be it scientific, philosophical or daily life (TM) we learn through observation and experiment. It need not be conducted in a laboratory or with quantative logic for it to qualify as experiment. However in the sense that you use it, yes you are correct, but then it is the observational side of experiment that has value here, and in that same respect, "observation" of concepts is used in philosophy.
Quad erat Demonstrandum
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
That is true that we cannot comunicate the experiences directly, but that doesn't mean we can't study how diferent people's brains react diferently to the word "red" and study the diferences in brain wiring and biochemistry that lead to diferent experiences among people.
|
Absolutely, a very good point well put. To me that is not replacing the experience of consciousness, the inherent subjectivity (that it's something necessarily unique and absolute for each of us). Rather, it is understanding the objective causes/consequences/symptoms etc. That, in this case, comes under neuroscience and it's perfectly reasonable to say that it may at some point understand the process completely. I happen to know some extremely intelligent people working on the brain, I have no doubt that they will eventually succeed, indeed possibly even create artificial intelligence, but I'm getting out of my depth there. They will not in my view be able to replicate, objectify or analyse (hence apply science) the question of consciousness however, since that is beyond the remit of science by definition.
With regard to the rising waters of science encroaching on the island of philosophy, I counter that by saying that every idea and field has it's place, and that they're not working toward the same end, why have them as opposing (especially since they have so much in common as previous discussed)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Well, if other people exist, so what? "Logically," I mean. If other people exist on the same level you do, from a cold-bloodedly rational point of view, depending on the empirically observable, without compassion, sociopathy is still the most effective form of behavior, provided you are good at pretending in order to get others' guards down. Even if you're not, there are circumstances where you will almost certainly never be caught for your actions, so morals are at best situationally dependent.
I've been trying to phrase my personal philosophy succinctly for this argument, and I think the cornerstone of it is: Morals, and the urge to be moral, are innately irrational. There's no sensible purpose in altruism unless you assume something supernatural. "Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead. "Other people are a lot like you?" Then they might be thinking about screwing me over for their own benefit, like I am. Better to get them first.
From there you face a choice: be irrational in your actions WRT morals, or internally inconsistent, or amoral. Amoral behavior is unpalatable to me, and my hatred of it far outweighs my love of reason. So even if it makes me irrational, I will not deliberately ignore my conscience. And the conscience is irrational. There's no individual benefit in moral behavior, so the conscience is a set of defective urges that hold me back as far as survival is concerned.
Internal inconsistency appears to be the most common choice among atheists. There's no apparent reason to be good, but be good anyway, but refuse other irrational/non-empirical ideas for some reason not specified. My desire for truth eliminates that for me. Breaking rules to avoid confronting unpleasant ideas is unacceptable. It makes me go nuts. (Yes, I know that the Bible is not scientifically accurate, but I view that as merely a consequence of its purpose as a tool of moral instruction, rather than as a science textbook. There's no telling how literal the thing is meant to be on scientific precision.)
That leaves irrationality, or at least ignoring the empirical-you hope/guess/assume that there is something inexplicable and unseen to drive your moral urges. I chose that. And the religion I was born into makes more sense to me than any alternative I have encountered. So I stuck with it.
I didn't really think this out as such; I tend to act on gut instinct, because my sense of intuition has a remarkably high success rate. Some sleeping part of my brain tends to grasp the truth long before the waking and considerate part, and I've learned to trust it because of that. This is just the best I can understand of the choices I made in hindsight. But those were my choices. Present any alternatives you think of.
The only exception I've heard, from Whaleboy, is the idea of interdependence on reason and emotion. Thing is, emotion is, for humans, quite frequently irrational, much more so than religious faith. Religious belief is based on assumption of the unprovable, but beginning from that initial assumption your behavior makes sense. Emotion generally ignores obvious disparities for the sake of protecting itself, and is directly or indirectly at fault in all cases of "evil in the name of God." It will often directly attack reason, whereas religion requires one "breach of faith" in that respect. Choosing "emotion" but not religion would appear to be based on a simple dislike of the latter. To me, that is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Well, if other people exist, so what? "Logically," I mean. If other people exist on the same level you do, from a cold-bloodedly rational point of view, depending on the empirically observable, without compassion, sociopathy is still the most effective form of behavior, provided you are good at pretending in order to get others' guards down.
Even if you're not, there are circumstances where you will almost certainly never be caught for your actions, so morals are at best situationally dependent.
|
So self-interest and egoism still applies and ones morals are a matter of personal expediency and benefit? I concur but that's ignoring the whole of the presumption of other people's existence. To assume other people exist and to be selfish assumes that you place yourself of higher importance (needs of the many/needs of the few) so effectively you still haven't escaped solipcism, as indeed none of us do. However in terms of a moral system of "should" or "ought", it can ignore that and then a P reference Utilitarian might say "well we ought not consider" solipcism, or in familial terms be selfish. Of course, that's part of the presumption or induction that other people exist, in purely deductive terms solipcism holds, but socially speaking you can't do a whole lot with it. I think if we're dealing with society, that other people exist and that selfishness and atheistic morality are incompatible would be assumed, so the presumption isn't a problem. A thought occurs... that presumption has many of the characteristics of faith! So perhaps it is not possible to create an objective moral system (as opposed to subjective) without faith. Food for thought eh?  You could argue an intermediary emotion that makes that "faith" possible, and the obvious candidate would be love, and would indeed help to clarify the nature, power and problems of faith, as well as the bounds between the subjective and categorical objective. Neat stuff!
quote:
I've been trying to phrase my personal philosophy succinctly for this argument, and I think the cornerstone of it is: Morals, and the urge to be moral, are innately irrational. There's no sensible purpose in altruism unless you assume something supernatural. "Create a better world for our children?" Why should I care? I'll be dead. "Other people are a lot like you?" Then they might be thinking about screwing me over for their own benefit, like I am. Better to get them first.
|
The issue I have with that is of emotivism. I reject Kant's view of morality being universalisable and on a categorical imperative, instead I concur with emotivism, which is that morality is, or is an extension of depending on how far you take it, an emotional reaction. So that leaves us with the emotions themselves. You hold that morality (and emotions by extension of my argument) are innately irrational and without purpose unless we assume faith (in God I presume). I don't agree because of simple neuroscience. The brain is a computer, operating on the laws of physics and principles of logic (though we may not understand them yet the brain does not defy the laws of mathematics).
Now while I hold that consciousness is something unverifiable and the experience of emotions and time is subjective, that we can produce and communicate emotions and morality shows that they too are logical. What I am saying is that emotions at a fundamental level are comprised of logic. You could then go on about evolutionary psychology, psychosexuality, egoism and all the rest of it, but I trust that the concept itself is self-evident. That begs the question of the typical altruist example, a man rushes into a burning car at great personal risk to save a stranger of whom he knows nothing (which means he knows of no perceptible benefit to his actions). Why does he do it? I see no need to call it an irrational action, excepting of course the obvious evolutionary benefits, rather that he is fulfilling some internal logical "programming" you could call it. Whether or not that is conscious is largely irrelevant, since it can only be done out of self-interest... a self-contained logical being can only deduce it's own existence remember. So the working through of that internal programming is an act of self-interest, though I'd quite happily bet that the man he rescues won't see it that way! .
quote:
Amoral behavior is unpalatable to me, and my hatred of it far outweighs my love of reason.
|
Awww it's not so bad! Just make sure you have a good supply of healthy renal systems and emergency transplant teams nearby . But in all seriousness, in the context of society (remember the presumption?) amoral behavior doesn't work. On one's own, it is the only conclusion, remember that objectively I hold moral nihilism, and that the only morality that exists is of the same value as, and borne of, an emotion.
quote:
There's no individual benefit in moral behavior, so the conscience is a set of defective urges that hold me back as far as survival is concerned.
|
I think it's important to note that evolution also plays a part in self-interest, since if you boil it down the urge to procreate is that self-interest, and it's arguable that everything we do as individuals is to that end. Nonetheless, this article http://salmonriver.com/commentary/c...inourgenes.html provides a useful argument of my position here.
quote:
Choosing "emotion" but not religion would appear to be based on a simple dislike of the latter. To me, that is.
|
I assume you mean faith? I think we've covered my differentiation between faith and religion (religion = re ligio = return to bondage = not the good kind of bondage).
quote:
And the religion I was born into makes more sense to me than any alternative I have encountered. So I stuck with it.
|
Ah I see!  . Surely the most consistent monotheistic religion would be Judaism? 
EDIT: Damned wordwrap on notepad 
Last edited by Whaleboy on 04-01-2005 at 03:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Have we said anything new from the 1000's of other religious troll threads?
|
Who's trolling? And yes, reading back this has been a very productive debate, a credit to all who have taken part 
quote:
Like every ethical system I've ever ran across, it's founded on an ad hoc assumption; specifcally, that I should strive for my own benefit, and only that. Now, this does have a certain plausibility to the human mind, but that doesn't change the fact that it's pulled out of thin air. It's an axiom. If I reject it and replace it with some other axiom that doesn't contradict whatever other axioms I'm operating with, I end up with an equally valid system.
|
Deductively, relativism applies yes but imo that's an empty assertion; you can't really do a lot with it. However, I have not, and consciously ensured that I would not, say one "should" or one "ought" to strive for their own benefit... that's prescriptive and completely different. It's a descriptive statement, which is an entirely different argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Have we said anything new from the 1000's of other religious troll threads? |
This is my first time, but in learning that this topic has been done ad nauseum, I've wondered that too. One thing I've inferred is that this time the ad hominem's have been restricted to a credential pissing match.
To further DinoDoc's question, is the discussion usually limited to the gradiations between atheism and agnosticism, or do people of any particular faith ever show up to debate? Being comfortable in my faith and wholly incapable of making a cogent argument for same, I'm content to listen and learn as much as possible about opposing views and wonder where the intellectual (Christians — or religious-fill-in-the-blank’s) are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
yes a mismatch. if this thread is any reflection of previous tries on the subject, people of faith don't bother posting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bayraven
|
|
My last statement is not completely fair, i know, but the extent of 'Faith Posting' has been the admission from some that God is a possibility. hardly representative of a Christian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
Hmmm I'm not sure, it's more likely that if someone sees an argument that disagrees with him strongly and he is able to counter it, he will usually do so here... at least I think that's the general experience around here (thoughts anyone?).
Certainly some very capable pro-theist posters have been present, I know BK hasn't, but then that's probably why we've had a productive debate jk. The difficulty for the theist position here is that we didn't start with an open question, I posted a piece where Russell refutes the best arguments for God's existence, and I do not believe there have been any new arguments since 1927 when the lecture was given. If I asked the simple question "does God exist?", "Is Christianity worthwhile?" then we would have been able to explore Russells arguments without repeating it. I suppose that means that this thread is just a discussion of Russells article... I for one am aware of no valid refutation to date though I may be wrong there... but assuming none exists, that would leave any theist at a disadvantage here. However, if we had started with an open question, it would have likely degenerated very quickly into a pedantic typing competition.
But then, this isn't solely about winning or losing, as you said we have been able to explore arguments, I've been able to clarify some of my thoughts as I'm sure many others have (that's the reason I engage in debates in the first place... trial by fire as it were).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-01-2005 01:33
.
|