Username wrote: I'm only saying that there are important questions that science cannot answer and the philosophical arguments for a first cause or prime mover are reasonable or at least important to consider.
Science is not the be all, end all you claim it to be, nor can it account for the good, the moral, etc. Reducing knowledge only to what is empirically measurable as hardcore positivists do is an impoverishment of human reason. As I see it, you rely upon implicit materialist first principles, but those first principles are merely assumed on your part and you mock those who don't share those assumptions. Woo woo, and all that.
Philosophy certainly has its uses, but it's mostly mental masturbation without application and verification (i. e. science). I can imagine anything I want, but it has little relation to what's real if it's only a product of my mind. If you philosophically postulate first causes, what does that tell us? You have a good imagination? Sure. What the first cause really is? No.
It's far better to reserve judgment without evidence and say "I don't know" than to reason around in circles and think you've arrived at some grand truth.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Username wrote: I'm only saying that there are important questions that science cannot answer and the philosophical arguments for a first cause or prime mover are reasonable or at least important to consider.
Science is not the be all, end all you claim it to be, nor can it account for the good, the moral, etc. Reducing knowledge only to what is empirically measurable as hardcore positivists do is an impoverishment of human reason. As I see it, you rely upon implicit materialist first principles, but those first principles are merely assumed on your part and you mock those who don't share those assumptions. Woo woo, and all that.
Philosophy certainly has its uses, but it's mostly mental masturbation without application and verification (i. e. science). I can imagine anything I want, but it has little relation to what's real if it's only a product of my mind. If you philosophically postulate first causes, what does that tell us? You have a good imagination? Sure. What the first cause really is? No.
It's far better to reserve judgment without evidence and say "I don't know" than to reason around in circles and think you've arrived at some grand truth.
Lol, spoken like a true postmodern. Unfortunately, such an extreme positivist view conveniently ignores the fact that science itself rests on philosophically postulated first principles (a.k.a., the philosophy of science). The problem is, those who take this extreme view consider those first principles to be empirically-demonstrated facts. This is an unwarranted (i.e. groundless) assumption.
The bottom line is there are two types of thinking processes. On one hand you have DrW and the like with a limited set of ideas that are self imposed. They then declare that any extension of the set of ideas is not valid and to do so exposes ignorance. But the group of people that do use a wider range of ideas to try and explain the universe are trying to see causation or to understand the purpose behind the universe. For science that question is already answered. For them there is no purpose and they think that even thinking about a purpose is contrary to what they already know to be true. Once someone tries to place a guided order to the universe then the science types think that idea is somehow stepping on their turf. In this they have extended their realm to demand that all thought be confined to their self imposed limits. They have become thought police.
The bottom line is there are two types of thinking processes. On one hand you have DrW and the like with a limited set of ideas that are self imposed. They then declare that any extension of the set of ideas is not valid and to do so exposes ignorance. But the group of people that do use a wider range of ideas to try and explain the universe are trying to see causation or to understand the purpose behind the universe. For science that question is already answered. For them there is no purpose and they think that even thinking about a purpose is contrary to what they already know to be true. Once someone tries to place a guided order to the universe then the science types think that idea is somehow stepping on their turf. In this they have extended their realm to demand that all thought be confined to their self imposed limits. They have become thought police.
Franktalk,
You are welcome to think what you like.
Really.
I would simply suggest that you don't attempt to use such thinking as the basis for doing research and development, providing critical professional services, or forming legislation that could harm the rest of humanity.
Attempting such activity would just waste a lot of money and lead to a great deal of frustration on your part.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Username wrote:Lol, spoken like a true postmodern. Unfortunately, such an extreme positivist view conveniently ignores the fact that science itself rests on philosophically postulated first principles (a.k.a., the philosophy of science). The problem is, those who take this extreme view consider those first principles to be empirically-demonstrated facts. This is an unwarranted (i.e. groundless) assumption.
I have been trying to point out to the science types that if you dig down far enough all of science rest on vapor. At some point we don't understand we just observe. In fact an argument can be made for the rest of science being that same way. I state that it is faith in the method and faith in the future understanding that they rest on. One may say they have faith that man will uncover all that is required to fully understand the creation. If one views science this way then science becomes a religion. It treats man as a collective and worships his accomplishments.
Some Schmo wrote:Philosophy certainly has its uses, but it's mostly mental masturbation without application and verification (i. e. science). I can imagine anything I want, but it has little relation to what's real if it's only a product of my mind. If you philosophically postulate first causes, what does that tell us? You have a good imagination? Sure. What the first cause really is? No.
It's far better to reserve judgment without evidence and say "I don't know" than to reason around in circles and think you've arrived at some grand truth.
Lol, spoken like a true postmodern. Unfortunately, such an extreme positivist view conveniently ignores the fact that science itself rests on philosophically postulated first principles (a.k.a., the philosophy of science). The problem is, those who take this extreme view consider those first principles to be empirically-demonstrated facts. This is an unwarranted (i.e. groundless) assumption.
I noticed you conveniently decided to ignore where I said, "it's mostly mental masturbation without application and verification(i. e. science). " Had you read carefully for comprehension rather than rushing to a conclusion that fits your fantasy worldview, you'd have realized I was intimating that science itself was based on a philosophy.
So... what's an unwarranted assumption, now? It's good to desire empirically demonstrated facts because they work so well? Reproducible experimentation works? Predictability should be valued? And why's that? Because science has failed us so horribly? WTF are you on about?
Why do I feel like some equivocation between the philosophy of science and other, less supported kinds of philosophy is coming my way?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:So... what's an unwarranted assumption, now? It's good to desire empirically demonstrated facts because they work so well? Reproducible experimentation works? Predictability should be valued? And why's that? Because science has failed us so horribly? WTF are you on about?
Why do I feel like some equivocation between the philosophy of science and other, less supported kinds of philosophy is coming my way?
Science and reliance on reproducible physical evidence is a good thing, so long as what science can and cannot explain is kept continually in mind. You seem to think that only empirically-supported kinds of philosophy, or philosophical propositions that can generate empirically-testable hypotheses, are valid. If so, why do you think this? On what grounds do you base your assertion that only the empirically-verifiable is real? You saw this coming: do you think Aristotle's metaphysical arguments are worthy of consideration or are they just fluff since they are not subject to empirical verification?
Username wrote: You seem to think that only empirically-supported kinds of philosophy, or philosophical propositions that can generate empirically-testable hypotheses, are valid. If so, why do you think this? On what grounds do you base your assertion?
Oh, I don't know... maybe because that's all that works consistently?
It's only an assertion if we don't have anything to back it up.
Username wrote: Also, do you think Aristotle's metaphysical arguments are worthy of consideration or are they just fluff since they are not subject to empirical scrutiny?
Sure, they're worthy of consideration, but considering something isn't the same as swallowing it.
Look, I'm not one to stand in the way of mental masturbation. Go nuts! Have fun. I just object to others getting their spew all over me and thinking they're doing me a favor.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Username wrote: You seem to think that only empirically-supported kinds of philosophy, or philosophical propositions that can generate empirically-testable hypotheses, are valid. If so, why do you think this? On what grounds do you base your assertion?
Oh, I don't know... maybe because that's all that works consistently?
It's only an assertion if we don't have anything to back it up.
Username wrote: Also, do you think Aristotle's metaphysical arguments are worthy of consideration or are they just fluff since they are not subject to empirical scrutiny?
Sure, they're worthy of consideration, but considering something isn't the same as swallowing it.
Look, I'm not one to stand in the way of mental masturbation. Go nuts! Have fun. I just object to others getting their spew all over me and thinking they're doing me a favor.
Yet, you mentally masturbate and spew over those who don't share your own first principles. Are you pot or kettle?