Science is based on philosophy

[tayla]

Is the Bible or any ancient text an accurate portrait of history? No, for several reasons. Is it okay to doubt its stories? Yes, it is. Is it okay to say it's completely wrong or a fabrication? No, it is not.

Seems to me if the text misrepresents history in a big way, and if the stories are likely not true; seems to me it is justified to claim it is fiction. In other words, untrue.

 

[Road Warrior]

You asked for examples. I didn't invent this religion.

Me neither.

 

[Road Warrior]

Seems to me if the text misrepresents history in a big way, and if the stories are likely not true; seems to me it is justified to claim it is fiction. In other words, untrue.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Is the Bible 100% correct? IMO, NFW. Is it 50% correct? I can't answer that since it covers a lot of territory. Some sections seem completely fictional, some seem to be an attempt to tell the truth. There's also a big difference between the OT and the NT.

Let's not forget the "Bible" was heavily edited by a bunch of white guys almost four centuries after the Crucifixion. It was edited from dozens of books to tell a particular story. One of the reasons why it often conflicts with itself.

 

[David T]

I read about it once. Christians use the word in a very different meaning than those two.

I would say that Christians use it nearly identical to pythagoras. And i might say the nebulous nature of the reference in the bible is not refering to the intellect at all. In this regard is the intellect or the soul older? Does the intellect give rise to the soul?

A cut from wiki.

Pythagoreanism says that the nous is an intelligent principle of the world acting with a specific intention. This is the divine reason regarded in Neoplatonism as the first emanation of the divine.[1] From the nousemerges the world soul, which gives rise to the manifest realm. Pythagoreanism goes on to say the Godhead is the Father, Mother, and Son (Zeus). In the mind of Zeus, the ideas are distinctly articulated and become the Logosby which he creates the world. These ideas become active in the Mind (nous) of Zeus. With him is the Power and from him is the nous.

In Heraclitus we have a rather radically different understanding of the logos in his comment "the logos is common but everyone seems to have their own private understanding".

In christianity the reference to the logos is "in the beginning was the logos, the logos was god,the logos is god, he was with god in the begining".


Is that aligned to heraclitus or pythagoras?

Your understanding of philosophy is rarer. I was surprised when you alluded to the soul. Thats not common......



Btw i enjoy this dialog if i dont answer i probably am asleep. I hace a chain saw i have to run tomorrow. Arrrgh.

 

[ChristineM]

These are the premises of the argument in support of the theory at hand. Arguing for the truth claims of a scientific theory is a philosophical epistemological activity.

Not quite, philosophy is in the mind, science is in the physical, hey have different work ethics, the subject matter if different.

There are many sites explaining in detail the difference,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dif...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[exchemist]

I refer to the "world of ideas" as the spiritual realm. The reason science is not the right tool is because ideas reside in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.

That is a statement of faith, which not everyone would share, and is not what I had in mind.

I interpret the "world of ideas" to comprise all the Humanities, i.e. the products of human intellect down the ages (what you might term the products of that higher human consciousness which the other animals do not seem to share). Science is not usually a helpful methodology for understanding these.

 

[PureX]

You keep saying people are freaking out or have constructed bogeymen, yet you yourself affirm scientism is something you've encountered. All I've done is compare it to post modernism. You didn't agree and also said postmodernism wasn't connected with marxism.

There's an article showing the relation between post modernism and marxism and between post modernism and historicism here which I think more shows it grows out of marxism. So there's no bogeyman, but our discussion went off on a tangent.

There's an article, well, that changes everything!

Sorry, but I think you have swallowed a very whacked idea of what postmodernism is.

 

[PureX]

Yes, very intuitive. I assume you are talking about revelation about the nature of the universe; not divine revelation from God.

How would we determine the difference? There are a significant number of theists that would assert that the universe is "God expressed", so that to know the physical nature of existence is to know something of the physical nature of "God".

 

[PureX]

In my view, philosophy is concerned with the realm of ideas, not the realm of matter. The revelation in this case is teleological and analytical using the rational powers of the mind.

The realm of ideation is the 'metaphysical' realm. It is real, and it really does effectively interact with the physical realm.

 

[Augustus]

In the last decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that philosophy, all philosophies, include those so called "philosophy of science", do nothing but talk on pointless things, which have no real values, other than to hear egotistic philosophies rant the importance of their schools of thoughts.

I don't consider myself a scientist, but my background in civil engineer and later in computer science, do require me to have some areas of knowledge of physics and mathematics, have taught me the values of science that have real world application.

In these two courses, civil and computer, I did not do a single lecture on philosophy, because philosophy has no real world application. If I was to do a whole semester on any philosophy, I would be wasting my times on subject that don't contribute anything at all.

"all philosophies, include those so called "philosophy of science", do nothing but talk on pointless things, which have no real values"

Do you believe it is perfectly obvious what should count as science and what should count as 'not science'?

Do you believe that scientific methodologies have already been perfected, yield perfect results (or at least perfectly understandable results), and that the implications of such results are always perfectly obvious?

Do you believe that as soon as a new scientific technology is invented we understand its uses and limitations perfectly?

Do you believe that there are no ethical questions that remain unanswered in the sciences?

Do you believe that publications in certain sciences failing to replicate at rates of 50%+ is beneath discussion?

Do you believe there is no real need to try to understand the differences between complex and simple systems and how this impacts scientific analysis of each?

Do you believe we already perfectly understand risk and uncertainty and how to implement policies based on scientific findings that may or may not prove to be robust in the long run?

Numerous scientists have mentioned that a failure to focus on the philosophical dimensions of the sciences is a bane on modern scientific practice. It creates people good at uncritically replicating technique, but not so great at enhancing our knowledge of the complex world that we live in.


I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. Albert Einstein

 

[PureX]

I think of theology as an aspect of religion; of using the tools of philosophical epistemological argumentation to construct arguments about various topics of interest to the religion. Usually the arguments lead to false claims since they are based on premises from the religion. In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

I don't consider theology to be a general purpose philosophical discipline. Considerations about God and spiritual matters from a philosophical perspective occur by reflection outside the confines of a religion.

In other words, I reject theology. It is useless. How many angels fit on the head of a pin. Whether God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Whether Jesus set aside his divinity temporarily in becoming human. This sort of thing is the domain of theology, all derived from religion. All useless.

Theology, like all philosophy, is not really about which paradigm is "true", even though they are being argued on that basis. It's about how well a given paradigm functions within the lives of men. Which is why theology becomes so inextricably tied to religious practice. It is through it's religious practice that a theological proposition gets 'tested', more-so than through logical debate (as with most philosophical propositions).

 

[PureX]

And you think that none of us understand that?

I think a lot of atheists are dishonest, and claim they understand this even as they believe and practice 'scientism', religiously. Just as they falsely proclaim their "unbelief" when they very clearly do believe that no gods exist and they if gods did exist they would be able to know it.

Because you using the word “scientism” here, seemed to be targeting at us, especially those who might disagree with you on certain issues.

It's hard to know who all has fallen into 'scientism' apart from atheists, because it's the atheists who are so often touting it, out loud.

I have accepted science because of the quality of the scientific theory and the quality and quantity of evidences that can be verified.

... "Accepted it" as what?

I don’t accept science as matter of BELIEF, which you have associated with scientism.

And no, I don’t think science has solution for everything.

What make you think anyone here, scientists or those people with science-related jobs, believe that science is a solution for everything?

I am thinking you are making false accusations and attacking straw man here. It is really dishonest tactic and gross generalization to point your misguided finger of scientism followers, when there are none.

I am thinking you are auto-defending a deceit that you're trying real hard not to acknowledge that you've fallen into.

 

[Audie]

Some of these "idiots" are Ph.D.'s at well known universities. I don't think reflections about science and philosophy should result in calling people idiots.

We know of PhD holders who are creatuionists.

Regardless of how you may feel things should be.

 

[Audie]

Philosophical epistemology uses logic and argumentation to prove arguments. What is a theory if not an argument having experimental evidence to support it?

Science does not prove things. Why are trying to argue with that?

 

[Audie]

I think a lot of atheists are dishonest, and claim they understand this even as they believe and practice 'scientism', religiously. Just as they falsely proclaim their "unbelief" when they very clearly do believe that no gods exist and they if gods did exist they would be able to know it.
It's hard to know who all has fallen into 'scientism' apart from atheists, because it's the atheists who are so often touting it, out loud.
... "Accepted it" as what?
I am thinking you are auto-defending a deceit that you're trying real hard not to acknowledge that you've fallen into.

Since you can never produce an example of this
"scientism" you so often claim others are practicing,
(religiously) your accusation of dishonesty is clearly
applied with more truth and less calumny to
yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it does this via philosophical epistemological arguments which have at their core logic and truth claims which can be proven or falsified.

First there are no truth claims nor proof in science. Your persisting in conflating science is philosophy, which is a vague not meaningful generalization, and you have failed to adequately define 'philosophical evidence, which is sort of an oxymoron.

 

[shunyadragon]

Economics is a social science. The law of supply and demand is not a mere label, but an observable phenomenon. Psychology is a social science. Political philosophy is a social science. I would hope that the leaders of our governments are well-studied in political philosophy so they don't repeat past mistakes over and over and over again.

You cannot conflate social sciences with your attempt to generalize and lump sciences in science is philosophy. The social sciences do not use methodological naturalism scientific methods in the manner the basic foundations sciences do.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's an article, well, that changes everything!

Sorry, but I think you have swallowed a very whacked idea of what postmodernism is.

I wouldn't be surprised. The experts betray us at every turn. There's always somebody waiting to stab you in the back and turn you into their tool.

 

[sealchan]

Science is based on philosophy, therefore, philosophy is essential in determining truth and knowledge. People often claim that all that is needed is science.

The scientific method of science is a philosophical construct, using epistemology to determine the nature of truth and knowledge, and how to prove things.

Other aspects of reality (or of claimed reality) fall under the category of religion and spirituality; but these should be evaluated via philosophy. Usually, these are considered as revealed knowledge from God. But revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge: they require philosophical evidence to back them up. (And also, they should not contradict science.)

The amount of philosophy in science is minimal.

 

[cladking]

Since you can never produce an example of this
"scientism" you so often claim others are practicing,
...

If I understand the useof the term then it seems to me that seeing all of reality is terms of science is most assuredly "scientism". It is a religion and it is practiced to a greater or lesser degree by "all" scientists.

Simply stated science understands the tiniest fraction of reality so seeing reality in terms of science is not seeing most of reality. This is critically important because what we don't see is most of the anomalies. It is the ability to observe and study anomalies which has always led to human progress but our omniscience blinds us to them.