Please Define "Religion"

[Augustus]

I'll reply to some other stuff later, but just want to keep these bit separate for clarification

That you continue to downplay the significance of the Scientific Revolution and characterize my position as "reading too much" into the changes that resulted in a demonstrably more successful investigative approach over that which was employed before can only leave me asking why.

The "why" is that you have missed the point here. I acknowledged significant changes with the field of natural philosophy between the 17th and 19th C. I just think your explanation of them bears little connection to what actually happened, and contains some very basic errors that undermine your entire argument.

This is what you said:

My argument would be that science broke away from, or is considered distinctly different from philosophy because it acknowledges and accepts the fundamental reality that any philosopher, any human investigator is imperfect and fallible, and as a result, that fallibility must be addressed and mitigated if the pursuit of knowledge is to be successful. A schism occurred between Natural Philosophy and the rest of Philosophy because only those in this renamed category were willing to acknowledge and accept this fundamental reality.

Regarding the red bit, whatever makes you think that "philosophy" doesn't acknowledge human fallibility? This is a nonsensical assertion. It is obviously, and objectively false.

Philosophy is not a singular that can be generalised about and is certainly not simply ancient Greek Rationalism. The experimental methods became popular due to changes within philosophy (via theology). The question of what we can know, and the limitations of knowledge is a branch of philosophy: epistemology. Analysis of this aspect of our humanity is necessarily both scientific and philosophical.

Regarding the pink bit, again it wasn't that some people acknowledged human fallibility and others didn't. It was based on increasing specialisation in the 19th C: the disciplines that could be studied scientifically became "science" and those that generally could not (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc.), remained philosophy.

While this was another period of change in the sciences, but was long after the "scientific revolution". Most of the changes occurred within the field known as Natural Philosophy before the mid-19th C name change. This is why I said "rebranding".

You are focusing on the 250 year before/after and saying "look! different!" then, with hindsight, backdating the name change so that the process is a split between science and philosophy, then you assign some imaginary motives to it to create a nice easy science/philosophy binary.

I'm saying that if you look at it without the benefit of hindsight, then you would have to acknowledge the changes mostly occurred in what was still philosophy, thus the motives you assign are nonsensical.

You have characterized my position regarding Science and Philosophy as stating that Science is good and Philosophy is bad. Is that really my position? I would characterize my positions more as asserting that Science works and Philosophy does not. Actually my position is that Science is Philosophy that employs crucial changes, and any knowledge acquisition process that does not incorporate these crucial changes will be prone to human error. Now if you were to insist that I am expressing my self in terms of good and bad, and using terms like nefarious then I have to wonder why.

Note the use of quote marks on "good/bad"

You have pretty much argued that the only reason philosophy exists is because philosophers refuse to become scientists. The schism was caused by the truth seeking scientists escaping from the philosophers who refuse to acknowledge their limitations. One group is on the "right side of history" and the other the wrong side.

I characterised this over-simplistic binary contrast as "good" and "bad" because it is an over-simplistic binary that is more ideological than factual (narratives again).

What does "philosophy doesn't work" even mean? Logic doesn't work? Ethics doesn't work? Epistemology doesn't work? The philosophy of science and maths don't work?

If I want to know the size of Jupiter, science works and philosophy doesn't.

If you want to identify what it means to be virtuous or what constitutes knowledge, science can't tell you and you are stuck with philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@MikeF @Augustus
Science works! Okay, but what if that has a limit like human mobility. I mean, I can move around under certain conditions, i.e. it works, but only under certain conditions and not other ones.
Now here is a trick from Popper. We now that human mobility is limited. We then ask if science is limited and note that humans can be fallible and claim that science has no limit and works in all cases.
So how do we test that? We test if all human experience is external sensory experience and that is simple. Just find something that humans do that has no external sensory experience, i.e. referent or correspondent.
There is how that works for the word "cat". "Cat" refers to something that can be observed, an external sensory experience, i.e. referent or correspondent. The word "cat" requires a human, an understanding of the word and a referent.
Now we just have to one word for which its referent is not a case of external sensory experience.

So here is the test. Science works in all case because all human experience is external sensory experience. And I just answer: No!
So we ask what is the referent of the word "no". Well, I did the following, I asked myself if I could do something, which is not observation, but something else. I did though yes I can and answered no. The no refers back to that I experience that I can think and reflect over several experience, including that I experience that I think and can think no.

So MikeF, "no" is not the only word that has no external sensory experience, i.e. referent or correspondent and observation is not the only human behavior or experience.
And since you always check your claims against what other humans have found, here is its from a science site:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

Further just to clarify in my culture science is not science. Science is an overall word for the following different kinds of science:
- Natural science
- Social science
- Psychology
- Humaniora
- Humanities (those 2 are different)
- Logic/math
- History
- Philosophy of science and thus in a sense
philosophy

Those are the modern ones, but they connect to different branches of philosophy and not just natural philosophy. So yes, you are fallible like the rest of us and in a sense we are existentially fallible, because there is not one perfect method that works on everything in an always positive sense. And that you can't only learn if you in the Western sense learn to do philosophy.

So it is not that science works as such. It is that it has a limit and please learn that.

 

[Augustus]

I'd be very interested to learn the details of your salvation narrative.

I don't have one. Most people in Western modernity have an optimistic view of history, and these are forms of the salvation narrative.

Salvation narratives are the optimistic product of Christian eschatology. History acquired a telos.

(The humanistic version is the Idea of Progress)

From Christianity onwards, human salvation would be understood (at least in the west) as involving movement through time. All modern philosophies in which history is seen as a process of human emancipation – whether through revolutionary change or incremental improvement – are garbled versions of this Christian narrative,
John Gray - The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom

Salvation through Christ. Salvation through education and science and reason. Salvation through revolutionary socialism. Salvation through liberal democratic capitalism.

Whether it is utopian or melioristic, it is teleological.

I favour the pre-Christian tragic view of human history. History has no telos or direction, humans don't learn from experience and are always inclined towards hubris. The major problems of the 'human condition' cannot be solved, only temporarily mitigated while conditions are conducive. Rise is followed by fall. What is gained will sooner or later be lost (socially, not necessarily technologically).

And since we do not have consensus on what is meant by the word 'myth', it is hard to proceed on these points.

It's really quite easy. I use your definition when reading your words, and you use mine when reading mine.

I use the term to mean narratives that are not objectively true (but that we act on as if they were true), that influence how we perceive the world, especially regarding value judgements.

This idea of a fragile world seems somewhat relative. Human life seemed to be much more fragile before modern medicine, with low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates.

I'm not sure what you are advocating here. Is it your recommendation that we roll back the use of technology, and to what level? Is technology really the issue or simply human behavior? What is your recommendation to make the world less fragile?

Human behaviour is not the issue as we have always had problems with this.

In the past, we could only do limited harm with our behaviours, now we can destroy everything. Our world is so interconnected that a deadly pandemic could be spread globally, whereas in the past high mortality usually limited spread as the host died to quickly. Environmental destruction, hubris regarding genetic engineering, something based on new tech not yet developed, etc.

On the individual level today, sure we are better off. On the level of the species, we have never been more likely to become extinct.

This is why it is hard to call it "progress" it is just a redistribution of risk.

I would think a scientific approach to the issue would fully appreciate that ethics are made up and would also appreciate that a subjective value can't be an axiom.

Since the problem at hand is managing human behavior, I would think a thorough understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it would be prerequisite to tackling this problem, right?

Then it wouldn't be scientific. It's like saying using scientific principles to get just the right shade of yellow is a scientific approach to painting.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy because, like numerous other things, it can't really be done utilising scientific methodologies.

This is not because ethicists hate think they are infallible, there are simply limits to the the scope and applications of scientific methods.

You say that I assert that everything can be studied using scientific methods. I am pretty confident that I have not used the phrase "scientific methods" and I am quite certain that your understanding of the phrase "scientific methods" is quite different than mine. What I do say, and have said specifically in this conversation, is that any methods utilized to explore a particular problem or question will be those that are specific and necessary to the particular problem or question at hand. What differentiates a scientific investigation from any other is that it is conducted with the acknowledgement that human beings are imperfect and fallible, and if an investigation is to be successful, that imperfection and fallibility must be actively mitigated. If you consider that a fallacious position, then I must wonder why. Why should any avenue of investigation be shielded from mitigating human error?

You haven't stated it explicitly, but it seems to me that it is implicit in your arguments. Just about everyome accepts human fallibility, yet you assign it as a point of differentiation of science.

Earlier, you said "If someone creates an artificial and unnecessary boundary as to where one can apply the standards and principles of scientific investigation, I can't help but try to understand why."

and also "All that is required is that the methodologies are appropriate to the subject or question at hand and that such methodologies make best efforts to mitigate the potential error of the investigator."

and "How are these basic standards not appropriate for any question we choose to investigate?"

The "artificial and unnecessary boundary" was pointing out that there are areas of enquiry, in this case philosophy, that cannot really be studied using scientific methods.

You also have noted anything that can be termed philosophy "doesn't work" and is thus is not done "using appropriate methodologies". So if no philosophy is done using what you consider to be sufficient to "mitigate the potential error of the investigator" and is not done using these "basic standards" you are only really left with scientific methodologies as meeting your criteria.

As an example, no one looks at ethics without being aware of what many other people have noted and experienced regarding these issues and are thus "mitigating the potential errors of the investigator". But you have said philosophy doesn't work and science does, so you imply that this should be done scientifically.

If you don't think this is accurate, what things do you think cannot be studied using scientific methods? What should we do in these situations? Why doesn't any part of philosophy meet your minimum standards, yet these other situations do? What would it need to do to meet them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am honestly worried by the fact that as science increases our functional effectiveness in the world, it is being used to disparage philosophy, art, and religion, which we need to increase our ethical effectiveness in the world.

We keep getting smarter, but no wiser. And in the end that can only lead to disaster. Even now we watch ourselves destroying the only place where we can survive, and yet we cannot find the ethical will to stop it.

I see thongs differently. IMO, as we get more ethical and, yes, wiser, we're more easily able to see the serious ethical flaws in our society's traditional religions. This is a big part of why they're declining.

Secularism and the environmental movement go hand-in-hand (as do climate change denialism and religion, often).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see thongs differently. IMO, as we get more ethical and, yes, wiser, we're more easily able to see the serious ethical flaws in our society's traditional religions. This is a big part of why they're declining.

Secularism and the environmental movement go hand-in-hand (as do climate change denialism and religion, often).

So you don't see in any problems in say some versions of a good, healthy and productive life?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First we need a definition of tradition. You've been using "Teaching their own ideas as Scripture".
Now, would you please refer me to scripture that says the behavior described in Jeremiah was being "taught"?
Still no scriptural support from the Hebrew canon for this ^^. It is an add-on. Please refer me to anything in Tanach where a prophet of God rebukes the leaders for "teaching" false ideas? That would move this conversation forward. Thank you,

Any thoughts about chapter 15 of 1st Kings, or chapter 15 of 2nd Chronicles ________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

............... IMO, as we get more ethical and, yes, wiser, we're more easily able to see the serious ethical flaws in our society's traditional religions. This is a big part of why they're declining................

Yes, I find religious 'waters' (aka people) are drying up spiritually.
Yes, society's traditional religions are often based on tradition/ customs outside of Scripture but taught as being Scripture.
To me this does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong, but man's wrong religious teachings as wrong.

 

[dybmh]

Any thoughts about chapter 15 of 1st Kings, or chapter 15 of 2nd Chronicles ________

I'm sorry. I'm looking for something that says something / anything which resembles "they taught their ideas as scripture". And it's not there. I don't see it implied either. ??? Which verses are talking about tradition taught as word of God?

 

[MikeF]

I'll reply to some other stuff later, but just want to keep these bit separate for clarification

The "why" is that you have missed the point here. I acknowledged significant changes with the field of natural philosophy between the 17th and 19th C. I just think your explanation of them bears little connection to what actually happened, and contains some very basic errors that undermine your entire argument.
... [TRUNCATED QUOTE TO FIT CHARACTER LIMITS ON POSTS]
I characterised this over-simplistic binary contrast as "good" and "bad" because it is an over-simplistic binary that is more ideological than factual (narratives again).

What does "philosophy doesn't work" even mean? Logic doesn't work? Ethics doesn't work? Epistemology doesn't work? The philosophy of science and maths don't work?

If I want to know the size of Jupiter, science works and philosophy doesn't.

If you want to identify what it means to be virtuous or what constitutes knowledge, science can't tell you and you are stuck with philosophy.

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy​

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy​

I have provided two definitions of Philosophy above. Both definitions seem to agree that Philosophy concerns itself with understanding reality broadly as well as focusing on the human condition and experience. I would argue that since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the goal of these endeavors has been to have an objective understanding of reality and of the human condition. Is this not the very aim of Science as well?

Let’s look at some philosophical subcategories and see if they may better fall under the domain of science or should remain separate. I will use categories and brief descriptions from Wikipedia for convenience.

Epistemology: the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. Epistemologists examine putative sources of knowledge, including perceptual experience, reason, memory, and testimony. - This category deals with how a biological organism (Homo Sapiens specifically) can acquire knowledge and be confident in that knowledge. This would require a full understanding of how that organism functions, especially a complete understanding of its central nervous system or CNS. An objective exploration and understanding of this subject clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Metaphysics: the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes and causation and the relationship between mind and body. - This category seeks the objective understanding of reality, and therefore clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Philosophy of mind: explores the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body, as typified by disputes between materialism and dualism. In recent years, this branch has become related to cognitive science. - This category seeks the objective understanding of the mind of a biological organism (Homo Sapiens), which would require a complete understanding of the organism's CNS. This clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Philosophy of language: explores the nature, origins, and use of language. - This category seeks to objectively understand how biological organisms communicate. As with other categories, for organisms that utilize a CNS, this would require a complete understanding of how the CNS functions. This clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Logic: the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. - Here again we are concerned with the objective understanding of how biological organisms, and most specifically the organism Homo Sapiens, think and reason. This requires a complete understanding of the function of the CNS and hence clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Ethics: also known as moral philosophy, studies what constitutes good and bad conduct, right and wrong values, and good and evil. Its primary investigations include exploring how to live a good life and identifying standards of morality. - This category seeks to gain an objective understanding the behavior and value choices made by a biological organism (Homo Sapiens), and to understand the management systems created by the organism to govern competing needs and wants of the organism in groups. To understand behavior requires a complete understanding of the CNS and the biological organism as whole, all clearly falling under the domain of Science.

Aesthetics: addresses the nature of art, beauty and taste, enjoyment, emotional values, perception and the creation and appreciation of beauty. - Here we have to ask what is the goal of this category. Is it simply to document all the various ways the biological organism Homo Sapiens reports their many subjective experiences of these things, or perhaps simply social commentary and opinion? That would not constitute a Philosophy, right? Philosophy wants to know why, and objectively so. If the category is to seek an objective understanding of why the biological organism has these experiences, it will require a thorough understanding of the biological organism, especially the complete understanding of the CNS, and in this regard the category would clearly fall under the domain of Science.

Philosophy of religion: deals with questions that involve religion and religious ideas from a philosophically neutral perspective (as opposed to theology which begins from religious convictions). Traditionally, religious questions were not seen as a separate field from philosophy proper, and the idea of a separate field only arose in the 19th century. - As you have self-identified as an atheist I assume you agree that this category is not an objective knowledge pursuit which is also reflected in the description in Wikipedia. This category then would be addressed by a multi-disciplinary approach utilizing Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and human behavior sciences broadly, and History. This category, then, also clearly falls under the domain of Science.

The philosophy of science: explores the foundations, methods, history, implications and purpose of science. Many of its subdivisions correspond to specific branches of science. For example, philosophy of biology deals specifically with the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues in the biomedical and life sciences. - since metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics all fall under the domain of Science, clearly this category falls under the domain of Science as well.

Political philosophy: the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. - In regards to this category, academia has already placed this category under the domain of Science, and rightly so. Again we are dealing with the behavior and group organization of the biological organism Homo Sapiens. This necessitates a thorough and objective understanding of the organism which clearly falls under the domain of Science.

So, in light of the above analysis:

If I want to know the size of Jupiter, science works and philosophy doesn't.

Exactly so.

If you want to identify what it means to be virtuous or what constitutes knowledge, science can't tell you and you are stuck with philosophy.

Since both of those questions require an objective understanding of reality and the biological organism Homo Sapiens, Science is clearly required.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy​

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy​

I have provided two definitions of Philosophy above. Both definitions seem to agree that Philosophy concerns itself with understanding reality broadly as well as focusing on the human condition and experience. I would argue that since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the goal of these endeavors has been to have an objective understanding of reality and of the human condition. Is this not the very aim of Science as well?

...

Notice the bold or so your claim of understanding reality broadly as well as focusing on the human condition and experience is not supported the quote. Do you want to try again?

You are doing philosophy for the first and I do it for the second and they are different.

 

[Augustus]

I have provided two definitions of Philosophy above. Both definitions seem to agree that Philosophy concerns itself with understanding reality broadly as well as focusing on the human condition and experience. I would argue that since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the goal of these endeavors has been to have an objective understanding of reality and of the human condition. Is this not the very aim of Science as well?

Some forms of philosophy have been to do with an "objective understanding of reality and the human condition", to define philosophy in general in that manner is like saying the aim of science is to increase human longevity.

Epistemology: the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. Epistemologists examine putative sources of knowledge, including perceptual experience, reason, memory, and testimony. - This category deals with how a biological organism (Homo Sapiens specifically) can acquire knowledge and be confident in that knowledge. This would require a full understanding of how that organism functions, especially a complete understanding of its central nervous system or CNS. An objective exploration and understanding of this subject clearly falls under the domain of Science.

Science doesn't tell us what inductive reasoning is. It does not tell us what deductive reasoning is. It does not tell us why deductive reasoning can produce certainty but inductive cannot.

Science cannot tell us what knowledge is, or what makes a deduction valid.

These have nothing to do with the CNS or human biology.

Epistemology is thinking about knowledge and the underlying concepts and principles behind it. These are used as the 'background' in scientific enquiry.

Science is the productions of knowledge about the natural world

Ethics: also known as moral philosophy, studies what constitutes good and bad conduct, right and wrong values, and good and evil. Its primary investigations include exploring how to live a good life and identifying standards of morality. - This category seeks to gain an objective understanding the behavior and value choices made by a biological organism (Homo Sapiens), and to understand the management systems created by the organism to govern competing needs and wants of the organism in groups. To understand behavior requires a complete understanding of the CNS and the biological organism as whole, all clearly falling under the domain of Science.

Again this is just nonsense.

You are confusing the is with the ought. Ethics is about what we ought to do, what does it mean to live a good life, etc.

Science doesn't tell you if it is better to be a utilitarian or adopt virtue ethics. It can't even tell you what these are. It doesn't tell you what rights we should have, or the extent to which governments can limit our freedoms in the "national interest".

If I decide to be a utilitarian, science can help me to decide the best courses of action to create the greatest good. Science can potentially tell us how we make moral judgements, or the neuroscience of guilt, but it cannot create a normative moral framework, or decide when a punishment is just.

I'm not going to go through the rest one by one because you are just repeating the same fundamental misunderstanding of both philosophy and science

Since both of those questions require an objective understanding of reality and the biological organism Homo Sapiens, Science is clearly required.

As noted above, this is just a rank misunderstanding.

If you think otherwise try to explain how science tells us what utilitarianism is and why it is better or worse than virtue ethics.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm sorry. I'm looking for something that says something / anything which resembles "they taught their ideas as scripture". And it's not there. I don't see it implied either. ??? Which verses are talking about tradition taught as word of God?

Yipes, even today there are No religious leaders who say their spiritual teaching is their ideas.
False religious leaders teach their religious customs, their religious traditions as being sacred or Scriptural.
So, No there is No verse going to indicate their religious ideas as being Scripture, but the opposite.
In the old Hebrew Scriptures we find the false ends up toppled by religious truth.
The false does Not stand. Even starting with the Tower of Babel religious-myth ideas were toppled.
Yet, many of those myth ideas started back then are taught as 'religious tradition' today.
A false prophet wouldn't be promoting true worship - Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Deuteronomy 13:1-4
They were teaching and passing down their ideas as being Scripture or scriptural.
By the time of the first century there were many religious traditions or customs being practiced.
Added on religious traditions or customs taught as Scripture.

 

[MikeF]

Some forms of philosophy have been to do with an "objective understanding of reality and the human condition".

First, what “forms of philosophy have been to do with an ‘objective understanding of reality and the human condition’”, in your opinion? Are they currently considered philosophy?

If the goal of philosophical inquiry is not to find objective answers to the questions it poses to itself, what kind of answers are being sought? What might be some examples of non-objective inquiry in Philosophy?

I am also curious as to whether you specifically consider metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind to be under the purview of science or philosophy?

Science doesn't tell us what inductive reasoning is. It does not tell us what deductive reasoning is. It does not tell us why deductive reasoning can produce certainty but inductive cannot.

Science cannot tell us what knowledge is, or what makes a deduction valid.

These have nothing to do with the CNS or human biology.

Really? Does not the empiricism of science demonstrate and confirm the limitations of inductive reasoning? Does not empiricism demonstrate the limitations of deductive reasoning, for objective deduction about real phenomena must first start with some known phenomena from which deduction can begin, correct?

Logic, language, and mathematics are tools of abstraction created by the mind of Homo Sapiens over a long period of time. How could they have nothing to do with the CNS and human biology, it is exactly the CNS that creates these tools. It is empiricism that allows us to determine their usefulness and limitations.

Epistemology is thinking about knowledge and the underlying concepts and principles behind it. These are used as the 'background' in scientific enquiry.

How, pray tell, do we begin to understand how we acquire information about the world and any limitations involved if we do not understand how Homo Sapiens function? How do we gain confidence in what we know except through empiricism, through Science?

Science is the productions of knowledge about the natural world

Exactly! What is there besides the natural world? The cosmos, Homo Sapiens in the cosmos, abstract systems of thought created by Homo Sapiens, are all the natural world.

You are confusing the is with the ought. Ethics is about what we ought to do, what does it mean to live a good life, etc.

Science doesn't tell you if it is better to be a utilitarian or adopt virtue ethics. It can't even tell you what these are. It doesn't tell you what rights we should have, or the extent to which governments can limit our freedoms in the "national interest".

If I decide to be a utilitarian, science can help me to decide the best courses of action to create the greatest good. Science can potentially tell us how we make moral judgements, or the neuroscience of guilt, but it cannot create a normative moral framework, or decide when a punishment is just.

If you think otherwise try to explain how science tells us what utilitarianism is and why it is better or worse than virtue ethics.

Why, for heaven's sake, does a philosopher have access to whatever is required to make decisions about ought that the scientist is unable to access? In both cases we are talking about human beings making decisions about oughts, are we not? Whatever is available to the philosopher must certainly be available to the scientist.

Now, what does the scientific approach bring to the ought problem? To start with, the scientific approach will disqualify any oughts that are justified or portrayed as required by imaginary entities. Add to that, the scientific approach will not consider something an ought simply on the grounds of tradition or convention. In a scientific approach any ought can be reassessed. In a scientific approach, our ever growing understanding of human behavior would be utilized to evaluate and inform the recommendation of oughts. A scientific approach will also actually look at the effects and outcomes of adopted oughts, make assessment and recommend changes if necessary.

So when you tell me that Science cannot be used with Ethics, I must wonder if it is because you feel imaginary entities or artificial constructs of reality must be allowed to inform oughts, or that oughts held by tradition or convention must be inviolate, as a scientific approach clearly threatens these positions.

Last, do you agree that Religion is best understood and evaluated through Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and History, or do you see it as exclusively under the domain of Philosophy, and that Science is unqualified to understand or evaluate it.

 

[dybmh]

Uravi,

I repectfully request to focus on the original assertions. I said that a bias against tradition is a feature of your faith. You have been aguing that the bias against tradition is indeed part of Judaism also. You have replied with several attempted examples of Jewish scripture discouraging traditions. But none of those scriptures included text to support it. No where does a prophet of God rebuke traditions being taught as scripture.

That means that this bias, indeed, is not part of Judaism. In the past I have heard Jehova's Witnesses disparage Jewish tradition coming from Babylon, but, to this day I have not seen scriptural support for this idea.

Yipes, even today there are No religious leaders who say their spiritual teaching is their ideas.

If it was a problem, the prophets would have spoken / written about it.

False religious leaders teach their religious customs, their religious traditions as being sacred or Scriptural.

Examples needed.

In the old Hebrew Scriptures we find the false ends up toppled by religious truth.
The false does Not stand. Even starting with the Tower of Babel religious-myth ideas were toppled.

"the false" are not traditions, that is your bias adding to the story; the Tower of Babel was hubris not religious-myth ideas. Please bring the verses in that story if you want to use that to make your point.

Yet, many of those myth ideas started back then are taught as 'religious tradition' today.

There's nothing wrong with myth when it's identified as myth and passed down generation to generation. The problem that you identified is "Teaching their ideas as scripture." Unless someone is teaching myth as scripture, there shoudn't be a problem.

A false prophet wouldn't be promoting true worship - Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Deuteronomy 13:1-4

yes....

They were teaching and passing down their ideas as being Scripture or scriptural.

Who was? Where is it written? Do you have any scripture to support this?

Added on religious traditions or customs taught as Scripture.

Says you.

 

[Augustus]

First, what “forms of philosophy have been to do with an ‘objective understanding of reality and the human condition’”, in your opinion? Are they currently considered philosophy?

I separated the previous post off because it's by far the least interesting bit of the discussion and hoped to discuss the more interesting stuff. Seems that failed I wrote a bit in pink later as that will cover basically all that needs to be covered.

Historically natural philosophy, but even in this case the purpose was not necessarily an objectve understanding. For example, for the Greeks, all philosophy was about the cultivation of virtue, and NP was simply a means towards that end.

More recently, something like Logical Positivism, but this was more about the 'background': what kind of information is cognitively meaningful. Even for them this was divided into things that can be tested empirically, and things that are true based on logical proof.

For them things like metaphysics and much of ethics was not meaningful as it failed these criteria.

If the goal of philosophical inquiry is not to find objective answers to the questions it poses to itself, what kind of answers are being sought? What might be some examples of non-objective inquiry in Philosophy?

Like I said, it's often the axioms, background or frameworks we use to make sense of other things.

I am also curious as to whether you specifically consider metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind to be under the purview of science or philosophy?

Philosophy (don't confuse cognitive science with philosophy of mind).

Really? Does not the empiricism of science demonstrate and confirm the limitations of inductive reasoning? Does not empiricism demonstrate the limitations of deductive reasoning, for objective deduction about real phenomena must first start with some known phenomena from which deduction can begin, correct?

Logic, language, and mathematics are tools of abstraction created by the mind of Homo Sapiens over a long period of time. How could they have nothing to do with the CNS and human biology, it is exactly the CNS that creates these tools. It is empiricism that allows us to determine their usefulness and limitations.

Your argument is like saying the rules of football are scientific because they have something to do with CNS and biology. The goals are not 200m in the air, and the pitch dimensions are based on an understanding of human physiology, therefore the rules of football are science.

In addition, the playing of football is science because science can explain the best trajectory for a shot, or can create the most efficient training regimes to improve speed.

Why, for heaven's sake, does a philosopher have access to whatever is required to make decisions about ought that the scientist is unable to access? In both cases we are talking about human beings making decisions about oughts, are we not? Whatever is available to the philosopher must certainly be available to the scientist.

When one makes a case for virtue ethics over utilitarianism, that is philosophy. You don't need to be a philosopher to do this any more than you need to be a historian to have a view on history.

A scientist doing philosophy is still doing philosophy. A scientist playing tennis doesn't make tennis a science.

Now, what does the scientific approach bring to the ought problem? To start with, the scientific approach will disqualify any oughts that are justified or portrayed as required by imaginary entities. Add to that, the scientific approach will not consider something an ought simply on the grounds of tradition or convention. In a scientific approach any ought can be reassessed. In a scientific approach, our ever growing understanding of human behavior would be utilized to evaluate and inform the recommendation of oughts. A scientific approach will also actually look at the effects and outcomes of adopted oughts, make assessment and recommend changes if necessary.

That's what I said, except you missed out the fact that these are meaningless without axioms from which to work and a broader moral framework.

My previous post:

Science doesn't tell you if it is better to be a utilitarian or adopt virtue ethics. It can't even tell you what these are. It doesn't tell you what rights we should have, or the extent to which governments can limit our freedoms in the "national interest".

If I decide to be a utilitarian, science can help me to decide the best courses of action to create the greatest good. Science can potentially tell us how we make moral judgements, or the neuroscience of guilt, but it cannot create a normative moral framework, or decide when a punishment is just.

So when you tell me that Science cannot be used with Ethics, I must wonder if it is because you feel imaginary entities or artificial constructs of reality must be allowed to inform oughts, or that oughts held by tradition or convention must be inviolate, as a scientific approach clearly threatens these positions.

I told you the exact opposite of this, but pointed out that science can only ever have limited input into ethics as it can never create the axioms or frameworks. Science can only help you realise these goals once they have been formulated.

If you disagree, only using science, tell me how someone could choose between being a utilitarian or an adherent of virtue ethics (for the sake of discussion, we''ll ignore the additional fact that these concepts first need to be created and defined which obviously cannot be done by science)

I've put this in pink because it is basically the only thing in this post you need to respond to if you want to get to the crux of the issue without being sidetracked.

If you cannot do this, you need to accept a role for philosophy in ethics. The same applies to all of the other areas of philosophy you mentioned, as you pretty much repeated the same error across the board.

Also, how many posts since I last pointed out that your oft-repeated bad-faith assumptions are entirely fictitious? Can't be more than 2.

As noted before, it does show you the power of narrative. You seem unable to actually get past the idea that there must be some kind of negative reason behind my views (even though, in this instance, I'm merely asserting the overwhelming consensus view that there are limitations to the science and accuracy of the sciences). This instinctual reversion to narrative expectancy also leads you to misunderstand the points I am making.

It's like a fundie arguing the only reason you reject their religion is because you want to live a life of sin and depravity.

Last, do you agree that Religion is best understood and evaluated through Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and History,

Yes, of course (if I were being pedantic, I'd add an etc. though)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
My previous post:

Science doesn't tell you if it is better to be a utilitarian or adopt virtue ethics. It can't even tell you what these are. It doesn't tell you what rights we should have, or the extent to which governments can limit our freedoms in the "national interest".

If I decide to be a utilitarian, science can help me to decide the best courses of action to create the greatest good. Science can potentially tell us how we make moral judgements, or the neuroscience of guilt, but it cannot create a normative moral framework, or decide when a punishment is just.



I told you the exact opposite of this, but pointed out that science can only ever have limited input into ethics as it can never create the axioms or frameworks. Science can only help you realise these goals once they have been formulated.

If you disagree, only using science, tell me how someone could choose between being a utilitarian or an adherent of virtue ethics (for the sake of discussion, we''ll ignore the additional fact that these concepts first need to be created and defined which obviously cannot be done by science)

I've put this in pink because it is basically the only thing in this post you need to respond to if you want to get to the crux of the issue without being sidetracked.

If you cannot do this, you need to accept a role for philosophy in ethics. The same applies to all of the other areas of philosophy you mentioned, as you pretty much repeated the same error across the board.

...

It is simple once you understand empiricism as in part a normative claim.
Observation is the only way to get correct answers.

The problem is the status of "is" and that ends in first person schemata for how different people understand their own thinking and other people's thinking.
The same problem happens with which method is the best one.
As long as some people understand the meaning of:
- The cat on the mat is black (logical positivism)
- Utilitarianism is the best way to do morality
as in effect with the exactly same "is" this will continue.

 

[MikeF]

A scientist doing philosophy is still doing philosophy.

My main assertion has been that Science *IS* Philosophy.

If you disagree, only using science, tell me how someone could choose between being a utilitarian or an adherent of virtue ethics (for the sake of discussion, we''ll ignore the additional fact that these concepts first need to be created and defined which obviously cannot be done by science)

I've put this in pink because it is basically the only thing in this post you need to respond to if you want to get to the crux of the issue without being sidetracked.

If you cannot do this, you need to accept a role for philosophy in ethics. The same applies to all of the other areas of philosophy you mentioned, as you pretty much repeated the same error across the board.

Since Science is Philosophy, I was answering this question by illustrating why the scientific philosophical approach is a distinct improvement over the non-scientific philosophical approach as the scientific approach requires identifying and mitigating human fallibility. In terms of ethical questions, I provided myth based ethics and treating ethical traditions or conventions as inviolate as example sources of fallibility that would necessarily be addressed with a scientific philosophical approach.

Now, I would like to interject a sincere apology at this point for my comment “So when you tell me that Science cannot be used with Ethics,”. This was indeed worded badly.

Perhaps it would be better worded this way. I take your position to be that in regards to ethics and ethical questions, science *may* be used to inform philosophy, but science and philosophy are distinct endeavors and must remain so. Is this close?

If this is the case, I see holding science and philosophy as distinct and separate endeavors as a mistake. It is quite natural in the process of knowledge acquisition to break this generalized task of knowledge acquisition into multiple, more focused lines of inquiry. However, as this process of inquiry is narrowed and refined into specific categories, the product of these specialized and focused categories must be available to all the others, and each category must continually incorporate knowledge from all other categories as required. You will argue that this is already done and I don’t disagree. However, I will strongly argue that if Philosophy and Science are considered as completely different things, different endeavors entirely, this creates an artificial barrier that I feel acts as an impediment to this process of sharing and internalizing gained knowledge across disciplines.

I am strongly arguing that any knowledge acquisition activity should fall under the same overarching category. It all must be considered the same thing to resist balkanization and the creation of barriers to the assimilation of knowledge across disciplines. By choosing Science over Philosophy as that overarching label, it signals that the improvements in the processes of knowledge acquisition as well as the knowledge acquired in science applies to, and should be incorporated into, any knowledge acquisition activity. Current views that treat Philosophy and Science as distinctly separate, or propose there are non-overlapping Magisterium between Science and Religion only strengthens balkanization and create inhibitions to the free flow and incorporation of knowledge across disciplines. These kinds of divisions strike me as contrary to an honest pursuit of knowledge.

Historically natural philosophy, but even in this case the purpose was not necessarily an objectve understanding. For example, for the Greeks, all philosophy was about the cultivation of virtue, and NP was simply a means towards that end.

Well, I certainly agree the ancients were concerned with virtue. However, it is my impression that depending on the particular school of thought, knowledge was objective, concepts such as truth and virtue could be objectively known. Wouldn’t you consider Plato as one to see knowledge as objective with his universal forms? Didn’t Platonic ideals heavily influence Western Philosophy through to at least the middle ages?

MikeF said: ↑
If the goal of philosophical inquiry is not to find objective answers to the questions it poses to itself, what kind of answers are being sought? What might be some examples of non-objective inquiry in Philosophy?​

Like I said, it's often the axioms, background or frameworks we use to make sense of other things.

This highlights the danger of treating Philosophy as separate from Science, for it is exactly how these philosophical axioms are created and justified that require the quality control of scientific principles and standards.

MikeF said: ↑
I am also curious as to whether you specifically consider metaphysics and the philosophy of the mind to be under the purview of science or philosophy?​

Philosophy (don't confuse cognitive science with philosophy of mind).

Again, to believe there can be a meaningful philosophy of the mind outside of science is incredible to me.

If metaphysics is the study of reality, such as existence, time, objects and their properties, is this not nature and hence the domain of science as you understand it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If metaphysics is the study of reality, such as existence, time, objects and their properties, is this not nature and hence the domain of science as you understand it?

Here is what some philosophers have to say about existence:
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Please this time read of it all and get back to us and answer how you observe existence as existence and what its property is in regards to scientific measurement instruments?

 

[Augustus]

I am strongly arguing that any knowledge acquisition activity should fall under the same overarching category. It all must be considered the same thing to resist balkanization and the creation of barriers to the assimilation of knowledge across disciplines. By choosing Science over Philosophy as that overarching label, it signals that the improvements in the processes of knowledge acquisition as well as the knowledge acquired in science applies to, and should be incorporated into, any knowledge acquisition activity.

The only people who tend to do this are those of a who think philosophy is obsolete since the advent of modern science.

You seem to have it the wrong way round though.

Science is part of philosophy (if it were up to me, I'd call it natural philosophy again) because science relies on things that themselves cannot be established via scientific methodologies.

You seem to think it is some kind of reluctance to apply rigour, or a desire to cling to superstition or obscurantism, rather than the fact that it just can't be done.

This is why you could not provide a direct answer to the following point:

If you disagree, only using science, tell me how someone could choose between being a utilitarian or an adherent of virtue ethics (for the sake of discussion, we''ll ignore the additional fact that these concepts first need to be created and defined which obviously cannot be done by science)

If you cannot do this, you need to accept a role for philosophy in ethics. The same applies to all of the other areas of philosophy you mentioned, as you pretty much repeated the same error across the board.

Since Science is Philosophy, I was answering this question by illustrating why the scientific philosophical approach is a distinct improvement over the non-scientific philosophical approach as the scientific approach requires identifying and mitigating human fallibility. In terms of ethical questions, I provided myth based ethics and treating ethical traditions or conventions as inviolate as example sources of fallibility that would necessarily be addressed with a scientific philosophical approach.

That is not an answer to the question I asked though. If you try to directly answer the question I asked, you will see the fundamental problem in your argument.

This highlights the danger of treating Philosophy as separate from Science, for it is exactly how these philosophical axioms are created and justified that require the quality control of scientific principles and standards.

First of all, you'll have to explain how you can create these axioms using "scientific principles and standards".

Now, I would like to interject a sincere apology at this point for my comment “So when you tell me that Science cannot be used with Ethics,”. This was indeed worded badly.

No problem

 

[MikeF]

Here is what some philosophers have to say about existence:
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Please this time read of it all and get back to us and answer how you observe existence as existence and what its property is in regards to scientific measurement instruments?

From your link:

"Many of the issues can be organized around the following two questions: Is existence a property of individuals? and Assuming that existence is a property of individuals, are there individuals that lack it?"​

Existence is all mass-energy. We human beings can recognize various patterns of mass-energy with spatiotemporal extension and assign abstract labels to those patterns for reference used in thought and communication.

Individual is a label attached to more than one abstract concept/construct of thought and can be used in language in a variety of ways. It can be used to refer both to configurations of mass-energy with spatiotemporal extension as well as to abstract concepts/constructions of thought.

If a label refers to a particular configuration of mass-energy with spatiotemporal extension, then that label refers or points to a phenomenon that exists.

Abstract thought exists as mass-energy with spatiotemporal extension in the neuron/chemical system of the CNS. The abstract constructs and algorithms of relations exist in much the same way as a computer with hardware, software, and data storage.