I Believe ...

[MikeF]

Science asks about physical patterns and behaviours in nature. Science asks how things behave. If someone asks why things are the way they are they are doing philosophy and drawing inferences from evidence. If there is intentionality in nature that wouldn't fall under the category of science. There's no method for testing if nature is exhibiting intelligence. Biology seems to use a lot of terms that I would consider to be terms that apply to intelligence; repurposing, transcription, code, functionality etc.. Physicalism, materialism, and naturalism are metaphysical positions.

I disagree. Prior to the scientific revolution, say the 19th century, in the Western tradition, all human inquiry fell under the umbrella term of Philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks.

What changed? Those specializing in natural philosophy began to realize that one could not rely on intuition and logic in drawing sound conclusions about the questions they were investigating. They discovered that human investigators were fallible and that the scientist philosopher could not trust his/her intuition alone. As a result, principles and standards were developed in order to mitigate human error. The rest is history. Once the inherent fallibility of the human investigator was addressed, natural philosophy/science began to make great and rapid strides in expanding our understanding in those areas where this approach was applied.

A scientific approach simply means to identify and mitigate human error in the investigative process. Why would we exempt any field of inquiry from that?

 

[ppp]

Well, this is much better than I can do it:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Ibid.

 

[Sheldon]

The issue here is not the evidence. Anyone can find evidence of anything. The issue is the rejection of logical skepticism, or the acceptance of it.

Anyone can choose to believe they have evidence, whether it is compelling or objective evidence FOR that belief is another matter.

 

[osgart]

I disagree. Prior to the scientific revolution, say the 19th century, in the Western tradition, all human inquiry fell under the umbrella term of Philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks.

What changed? Those specializing in natural philosophy began to realize that one could not rely on intuition and logic in drawing sound conclusions about the questions they were investigating. They discovered that human investigators were fallible and that the scientist philosopher could not trust his/her intuition alone. As a result, principles and standards were developed in order to mitigate human error. The rest is history. Once the inherent fallibility of the human investigator was addressed, natural philosophy/science began to make great and rapid strides in expanding our understanding in those areas where this approach was applied.

A scientific approach simply means to identify and mitigate human error in the investigative process. Why would we exempt any field of inquiry from that?

By all means you can try to answer ultimate questions with science. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try. I'm thinking science has limits though. I'm thinking the math of science is often logic. Ultimate questions may never be more than a matter of philosophy.

How can science tackle ultimate questions without using philosophy?

On one hand quantum mechanics and relativity do not work together mathematically. There are physicists saying that space and time are not fundamental to reality and that there is underlying physics to spacetime.

As far as truth value for ultimate questions I don't think science has the resources, and it will always be a matter of philosophy.

Science is a complete necessity for survival and useful knowledge though. For matters of religion and morality, philosophy has yet to be escaped from.

There are religions that hinder progress, and are blind to reality. I'm talking about religion in general though.

 

[F1fan]

By all means you can try to answer ultimate questions with science. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try. I'm thinking science has limits though. I'm thinking the math of science is often logic. Ultimate questions may never be more than a matter of philosophy.

How can science tackle ultimate questions without using philosophy?

What is an ultimate question?

Having dabbled in philosophy many years ago I realized the answers to ultimate questions, like meaning to life existing, were subjective. In the end the person has to decive the self in believing they have an answer, or just accept there is no real answer.

Call it cynical, but this all led me to psychology, because the fulility of seeking an absolute truth suggested the answer was the flawed human mind, and it's desperation for something that isn't available. Look at the absurdity of religions that claim asnswrs, but can't show their work. And many go along with the claims and don;t ask questions beyond the superficial meaning.

The winning solution is to not ask questions that there is no answer for. That is a sort of wisdom that comes with age and exverience.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

By all means you can try to answer ultimate questions with science. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try. I'm thinking science has limits though.

I can't imagine what limits there would be on science that are not the same limits to any other discipline of knowledge acquisition. In all cases we are talking about the activities of human beings.

I'm thinking the math of science is often logic.

Mathematics, logic, and language are all abstract constructs or systems. The issue with abstractions are that they are only limited by our capacity to imagine. The key to using these abstractions for thinking, reasoning, and communicating about the real world is to have a mechanism of demarcation, a way to ensure the abstract constructions we use are synthetic to our real world of experience, that they correspond.

Ultimate questions may never be more than a matter of philosophy.

If philosophy means speculation, hypothesis, imagination, then I can agree with you. If you mean philosophy in some pre-scientific classical sense, then I would whole-heartedly disagree, for all you are doing is circumventing the mitigation of human error in the investigative process.

There may be some questions which humanity will never have the capacity to answer. We have to learn to come to terms with that and be willing to accept it.

How can science tackle ultimate questions without using philosophy?

Science is Philosophy. Science is Philosophy 2.0, superseding the old.

On one hand quantum mechanics and relativity do not work together mathematically. There are physicists saying that space and time are not fundamental to reality and that there is underlying physics to spacetime.
As far as truth value for ultimate questions I don't think science has the resources, and it will always be a matter of philosophy.

Can we answer today all the questions about how the Cosmos functions and began? No, of course not. If science is at an impasse on a particular question or problem, then all are at an impasse. Sure, Philosophy can speculate and guess what is beyond the current bounds of scientific inquiry, but that is all it can be, is speculation. Since the potential of abstract systems and constructs is infinite, imagination can quickly loose correspondence to actual reality. As with hypothesis in Science, speculation in Philosophy is only imagination until there is corresponding evidence to verify and support the idea.

For matters of religion and morality, philosophy has yet to be escaped from.

I would ask why religion and morality are the sole province of classical philosophy and not modern science. If religion is about real and existent things then that is clearly in the realm of scientific inquiry.

What is morality except the social rules that allow human beings to live in social groups. When we talk about morality we are talking about the behavior of human beings, and is not psychology, neurobiology, sociology, etc all in the realm of science?

To shield a knowledge pursuit from the principles and standards of scientific inquiry can only mean that one wishes to remain exempt from error mitigation.

 

[syo]

What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong?

?

 

[osgart]

IMO



I can't imagine what limits there would be on science that are not the same limits to any other discipline of knowledge acquisition. In all cases we are talking about the activities of human beings.



Mathematics, logic, and language are all abstract constructs or systems. The issue with abstractions are that they are only limited by our capacity to imagine. The key to using these abstractions for thinking, reasoning, and communicating about the real world is to have a mechanism of demarcation, a way to ensure the abstract constructions we use are synthetic to our real world of experience, that they correspond.



If philosophy means speculation, hypothesis, imagination, then I can agree with you. If you mean philosophy in some pre-scientific classical sense, then I would whole-heartedly disagree, for all you are doing is circumventing the mitigation of human error in the investigative process.

There may be some questions which humanity will never have the capacity to answer. We have to learn to come to terms with that and be willing to accept it.



Science is Philosophy. Science is Philosophy 2.0, superseding the old.



Can we answer today all the questions about how the Cosmos functions and began? No, of course not. If science is at an impasse on a particular question or problem, then all are at an impasse. Sure, Philosophy can speculate and guess what is beyond the current bounds of scientific inquiry, but that is all it can be, is speculation. Since the potential of abstract systems and constructs is infinite, imagination can quickly loose correspondence to actual reality. As with hypothesis in Science, speculation in Philosophy is only imagination until there is corresponding evidence to verify and support the idea.



I would ask why religion and morality are the sole province of classical philosophy and not modern science. If religion is about real and existent things then that is clearly in the realm of scientific inquiry.

What is morality except the social rules that allow human beings to live in social groups. When we talk about morality we are talking about the behavior of human beings, and is not psychology, neurobiology, sociology, etc all in the realm of science?

To shield a knowledge pursuit from the principles and standards of scientific inquiry can only mean that one wishes to remain exempt from error mitigation.

Morality is more than behaviour, it's the thoughts, intentions, and desires that lead to those behaviours. Introspection and reasoning upon self and others offers a working knowledge of basic morality. People are capable of being independently morally responsible. There is knowledge from experience. There is knowledge to gain in philosophical perspectives.

External behaviour is what science is limited to. Science can't tell people how to manage their internal life without it being philosophy. That's where spirituality begins.

 

[MikeF]

Morality is more than behaviour, it's the thoughts, intentions, and desires that lead to those behaviours.

In thinking carefully about the sentence above you may realize that factors that lead to, or cause certain actions or responses such as thoughts, intentions, desires, instincts, and hormone levels, all fall under the category of behavior. In other words, in studying behavior, we not only want to what is being exhibited or express, we want to know why.

Introspection and reasoning upon self and others offers a working knowledge of basic morality.

As we have discussed, that introspection and reasoning is being done by a human being, correct? Human behavior is influenced by a wide variety of factors and is malleable. Just starting with the fact that each of us has a unique pattern to the web of neuronal connections in our central nervous system, no two people are exactly alike. Add to this the affect of socialization we receive through our formative years into adulthood. We can be instilled with strong social morays and taboos that vary from culture to culture. Add to this varying emotional needs among individuals and for some, real mental health conditions that can impact thought and behavior. All these factors that can influence the way we think need to be considered and controlled for in trying to understand human behavior and what may inform an individuals ideas about morality or ethics. We can never rely solely on personal subjective introspection, especially in making decisions about morality and ethics for society as a whole.

There is knowledge to gain in philosophical perspectives.

Where does the philosophical perspective come from except from people? If people are potentially fallible and biased, then steps must be taken to mitigate that. Since classical philosophy does not incorporate error mitigation, I fail to see what value is added by a philosophical approach. In all cases, be it modern science or classic philosophy, we are talking about human beings asking questions and trying to find answers to those questions.

External behaviour is what science is limited to.

Again, I think you need to think more carefully about this statement. External behavior has a cause, that cause being the very internal central nervous system.

Science can't tell people how to manage their internal life without it being philosophy. That's where spirituality begins.

Really? I thought psychologists and psychiatrists were all about telling (or a least help/advising) people how to manage their internal life, both of which are scientific endeavors.

 

[Sheldon]

This is absolutely true. Bias can be shared among individuals.

Is more likely to in groups, in fact. I remember research where the researchers asked groups of people to answer relatively easy questions, and record the results. However in each group only 1 person was being tested, the rest were plants, who deliberately gave incorrect answers. In every test group the 1 person being tested began to alter their correct answers to match the wrong answers the other members were giving.

 

[Sheldon]

One thing that science and logic offers us, despite we humans being flawed, is that these allow us to recognize failures and mistakes. In theology and philosophy there is no such mechanism, the self can be correct if it wants to be.

A basic requirement of the methods of science now is that all ideas are falsifiable. Science recognises unfalsifiable ideas, whilst easy to create are of little epistemological value, so they are rejected as unscientific.

It's ironic, or at least it seems so to me anyway, that so many theists try to decry science for improving its methods and for being able and willing to admit to an error, and reject any idea according to the evidence. This is one of the greatest strengths of the method, the acceptance of an error avoids pointlessly clinging to errant beliefs. Whereas I often hear theists claim to be 100% certain, and would never abandon the belief.

 

[rational experiences]

A long time ago. Natural mutual equal non egotist humans lived.

Nothing like humans today. Destroyed consciousness.

Aware they never needed any other intervening advices. Medical and it's supplies were found in nature or earth.

Unlike man plus machine who proves his mind gone needed machines.

It's why he said by science lying a human is part machine.

You never needed anything else nor investigation. As a natural life.

As civilisation we knew was evilly acquired.

So if you stopped the b.s. today just maybe human truth might touch your human mind. Before Theists just humans get life destroyed on earth.

As guess what egotist you didn't theory creation into existing.

Once legal told you to keep your lies to yourself. Galileo didn't and ended up in gaol.

 

[Sheldon]

By all means you can try to answer ultimate questions with science. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try. I'm thinking science has limits though. I'm thinking the math of science is often logic. Ultimate questions may never be more than a matter of philosophy.

How can science tackle ultimate questions without using philosophy?

On one hand quantum mechanics and relativity do not work together mathematically. There are physicists saying that space and time are not fundamental to reality and that there is underlying physics to spacetime.

As far as truth value for ultimate questions I don't think science has the resources, and it will always be a matter of philosophy.

Science is a complete necessity for survival and useful knowledge though. For matters of religion and morality, philosophy has yet to be escaped from.

There are religions that hinder progress, and are blind to reality. I'm talking about religion in general though.

Ultimate question? I know what both words mean, but don't know what they mean together?

 

[Sheldon]

What is an ultimate question?

Same thing occurred to me tbh?

 

[F1fan]

Same thing occurred to me tbh?

He doesn't seem to have a simple answer to "what is an ultimate question". So, irony? More religious bluffing?

I see many religious folks make claim, after claim, after claim as cover for claims they can't show are true. Thier solution is heaping more claims on to as if to hide the original claim. It's not honest, and I'm not sure if they are trying to fool others, or themselves. Or both. The religious who can't articulate their beliefs under questioning seem to bluff. That's gambling with the "truth".

 

[osgart]

If you have ever seen Closer To Truth on YouTube or public television you would know what an ultimate question is. Ultimate questions are existential questions about meaning, purpose, or otherwise. Things like why are we here? What's fundamental about reality?

 

[osgart]

Ultimate question? I know what both words mean, but don't know what they mean together?

 

[F1fan]

If you have ever seen Closer To Truth on YouTube or public television you would know what an ultimate question is. Ultimate questions are existential questions about meaning, purpose, or otherwise. Things like why are we here? What's fundamental about reality?

Why are we here?

Because we aren’t somewhere else.

Next question.

 

[rational experiences]

If any human said I'm just sperm ovary and microbial.

Then science machine advice only is moot. As it is fake.

Man's mind says I function as part machine now. Having given away healer aware mutual equal advice consciousness. Parent mutuality.

Human with natural advices astute accurate.

As a human our claim is we reinherit the adult first parent life. Their memory allows our consciousness now.

None of us are like them anymore...some of us aware enough however to be close enough to discuss who they were.

Why they were so acutely aware of all things as they had come from the place of the creator.

Now a Theist thinks. You don't own nor use a machine first. So just stop lying now. Everyone a human and natural first by law.

First a human baby man adult brain prickled biology was changed by spirt gas that fell burning. By Satan's wandering star earth gained. Advice suns says is not earths.

Position when men as humans began to lie versus spiritual father.

Exact warnings. When you are near life destruction again you'll learn about father...his truth only known by life sacrifice again.

Why I know. Brain prickled attacked.

We were once with the eternal beings. Eternal unconditional had released our parents into created earth life via a GOD window caused in earths planet heavens at ground mass.

Walked out from and came from as parent life from eternal. Became human mainly constituting instant change into water microbiology.

De evolution in fact from being eternal once only. Our parents notification where living biology came from...inherited created waters position.

Which held dust chemicals floating in water also. Why we aren't fixed and can freely move ...when mass is exact and fixed.

As physical biological sex brings forth babies. We relied on their memory to advise us who we were....where we came from. We don't own their story...we are from biological sex only.

Of spirit terms was a creator via GOD is only human theories. GOD explained by a human as flow movement of heavens spirit mass coldest greatest theme.

Not God or the God or of God. Eternal being of no explanation of conditions. Our history. And as it's not science by human only manipulation. We arent connected to any machine.

The terms God only a human explains.

It's why we are accurately aware.

Bio consciousness and not the book or a book owned the real spirit explanation.

Now if the book bible was just a new updated testimonial versus man's choices whose wrong?

The human machine builder controller is. As he only chose particular advices not reactive relative in laws. Just to get the machine. Is his greatest human con and coercion.

Ignoring all advices. Only making human choices. Themed teaching destruction based in choice. Human man's god themes.

So did men rebuild the destroyed blown up pyramids temple science? By cosmic law causes.

Yes.

But natural laws blew it up?

Yes.

A huge scientific lie...I put back what God terms had destroyed. As you hadn't. You repaired updated technology with Stonehenge.

It still blew up. As your ego says it knows more about stopping destruction than you not causing it.

As natural stopped destruction. Human science was applying the destruction by machine status.

Is what you've always outrightly lied about.

So today you can't read evil then interpret it into a spiritual teaching as the bible was shut. Is the known bible history. Shut. Not read.

It was only re referenced to state historical evidence taught before was why science was evil and outlawed. Reiterated when the falling star came again and new men wanted to rebuild the pyramid temple technology.

Holy wars to take technology temple control again. Rebuilding.

Which most of you just happen to ignore today. However I think the Baha'i mention about bible readings themselves as not being the absolute advice needed.

 

[Sheldon]

He doesn't seem to have a simple answer to "what is an ultimate question". So, irony? More religious bluffing?

I just think it's an entirely arbitrary and subjective phrase, so it would need to be accurately defined. Some people seem to believe overarching questions about our existence are more significant than say "What shall I have for lunch"? Then when asked why they believe this, no cogent answers are ever offered, generally just broad assumptions and incredulity that the question isn't that significant to some people.

"Why do we exist" carries an inherent assumption. Why would I assume the evolution of one species of great ape is of anymore significance than any other species? Beyond the importance we subjectively attach to ourselves and to others, or the empathy we feel for the unnecessary suffering of others.