Oh, and just to stay on topic, have some of this, too:
G'day!
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
First of all, you people... I went to the lab for the day and you people added 2 whole new pages. If I had stayed overnight there, you'd probably added 5 more pages just to annoy me.
slevesque writes:
So you use scientific evidence in order to prove that science is a superior method of investigation ? Doesn't this sound a bit circular to you ?
Here is something to consider. Your statement would make a lot of sense if we're talking about things in a vacuum. But you see, we're not in a vacuum. We got centuries of experience in these matters.
Science has an excellent track record. It has helped mankind produce more food with the same resources than ever before. We have discovered untold wonders through scientific endeavor. The invention of anti-biotics alone saved millions of lives. Science has even put a man on the moon for christsake.
In the lab we've been working on a new material that could one day replace steel as the main reinforcement for concrete structures. It is twice as strong as steel, only weighs 1/4 that of steel, doesn't rust, doesn't corrode, fire resistant, lasts 5 times longer than steel, and is much much cheaper to make. We didn't just sit there and crank out nonsensical essays to come up with these stuff. We're doing honest to goodness hands on research and development.
Now, let's look at the alternatives.
Creationist research - no progress. Philosophy - no progress... other than more nonsensical essays. Homeopathic medicine - no progress. UFO research - no progress. Big foot research - no progress.
So, you honestly want to put these other things on the same rank as science? Are you seriously this delusional?
Again, your statement only makes sense if none of these things have any track record for us to look at. But let's step out of your philosophical mumble jumble and look at reality for once.
Added by edit.
Last year we tested out a reinforced concrete beam, somebody set the pressure too high and the thing literally exploded. Somebody outside heard the explosion and called 911. It took the rest of the day to clean up the lab.
The point is that's real scientific research, not fabricating nonsensical papers that have nothing to do with reality.
slevesque writes: At the basis of science are philosophical principles.
Can you provide a list of these philosophical principles?
slevesque writes: So you use scientific evidence in order to prove that science is a superior method of investigation ? Doesn't this sound a bit circular to you ?
It doesn't sound particularly circular to me.
If Taz were using scientific assumptions to prove the value of science, then that would be circular (assuming what you are trying to prove). But if he is using evidence, that takes him outside the chain of reasoning and breaks the circle.
If Taz were using scientific assumptions to prove the value of science, then that would be circular (assuming what you are trying to prove). But if he is using evidence, that takes him outside the chain of reasoning and breaks the circle.
Well, the problem would be that the idea that evidence has value is itself a "scientific assumption". The use of evidence does not break the circle, it's part of it.
---
This is usually the point at which I start quoting Hume's Dialogues.
Well, the problem would be that the idea that evidence has value is itself a "scientific assumption". The use of evidence does not break the circle, it's part of it.
This is why I used the track records as a way to prove my point that you can't equate all these other things with science. It's like trying to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine even though faith healing has absolutely zero recorded instance of it actually working.
If sleve wants to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine, ask him if the next time he got involve in a car crash or if he becomes violently ill will he want to go to a hospital or will he want to be taken to a church where they will try to pray for his recovery.
A question worthy of your intellectual prowess Jon. And one I will endeavour to answer with the clarity it demands and deserves. Consider the epistemological variants at play here. If we apply the principle of Cartesian hegemony it becomes clear that the answer to your question is neither self-evident nor evident of self. It is instead indicative of the meta-self. The process of Post-Freudian masculinisation then requires that we take the natural logarithm of the Id and deconstruct this as a factor of the linear co-efficient of the ego. In this manner we are able to overcome the transgressional boundaries imposed by the modernistic societistic subjective I of the object in question. In other words the transmutational id-ego of the subject provides the over-arching ontological framework in which your parallel induced epistemological question objectively resides. Evidently the modality of the expressionistic components of the question are now divided into their genderised subsets. Thus by putting the non-orthogonal didactic elements of your question to one side the answer should become obvious to even those lacking erudition such as yourself.
I hope this clarifies things. Feel free to ask further questions if necessary.
Nobody is disputing the success of science. Except perhaps some post-modern nonsensicalists whom we all agree here are rather silly.
The questions that philosophy seeks to answer are those that pertain to the question of why science is so successful. On what basis do scientists derive their methods? Why are these methods superior to other methods? What is tentativity and why is it necessary in science? What is evidence and what forms can it take? How do we judge what is science and what is not? What is it that science is actually seeking to do? And is that aim meaningful or logically justifiable? (and how much does it matter if it isn't?)
These are philosophical questions. You can almost certainly happily go about doing science without answering them. You can put men on the moon without ever even considering these things. But when faced with the sort of arguments we see here at EvC all the time - arguments where the difference between knowledge and belief is blurred and where things like non-empirical forms of evidence are cited as valid - the philosophical foundations matter.
And if you don't think those arguments matter I would question why you post here at all.
Having read it through your post again I am now certain that you don't think that it's meaningful. We get to read a lot of gibberish on these forums, but I know you well enough that when you started gibbering about "natural logarithms" you were just taking the piss.
This is why I used the track records as a way to prove my point that you can't equate all these other things with science. It's like trying to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine even though faith healing has absolutely zero recorded instance of it actually working.
If sleve wants to put faith healing on the same level as modern medicine, ask him if the next time he got involve in a car crash or if he becomes violently ill will he want to go to a hospital or will he want to be taken to a church where they will try to pray for his recovery.
But that's not what I said, did I ? I never said all philosophies are equal. In fact, I remember saying that a lot of philosophies are garbage.
What I did say, was that science is also founded on a certain philosophical approaches (ie empiricism). Of course science has a great track record, and this is why you can deduce that empiricism is a great way to approach the real world.
I really don't see what the whole fuss is about. Science isn't this mysterious thing that's appart from other parts human reasoning that ''works 'cause it works''
Straggler, since philosophers have defined philosophy as the basis of all human thought, of course you'd think that those questions are philosophical questions. What I'm saying in regard to this is that you don't need all the philosophical mumble jumble to answer these questions.
The answer to all your questions is reality. Science is the only field that deals with reality as we know it. If tomorrow the laws of physics changes than science will change with them.
Can you name anything else at all, any other framework of human endeavor that deals 100% with reality? Let see, religion... nope. UFO research... nope. Creationism... nope.
So, why is science so much more successful than everything else mankind has tried? Because science deals 100% with reality. And what a coincidence, we happen to be living in reality, not some fairy tale.
modernistic societistic subjective I of the object in question. In other words the transmutational id-ego of the subject provides the over-arching ontological framework in which your parallel induced epistemological question objectively resides. Evidently the modality of the expressionistic components of the question are now divided into their genderised subsets. Thus by putting the non-orthogonal didactic elements of your question to one side the answer should become obvious to even those lacking erudition such as yourself.
What I did say, was that science is also founded on a certain philosophical approaches (ie empiricism). Of course science has a great track record, and this is why you can deduce that empiricism is a great way to approach the real world.
Read my post above. I've done considerable study on philosophy because once upon a time I wanted to go into it instead of ending up in a field of science. Even empiricists have come up with a lot of mumble jumble to explain what is otherwise a simple, real concept. We live in reality. Therefore, reality is the most likely path towards salvation.
What I don't agree with philosophy is it trying to make a mess out of everything.
So, yeah, you can try to say that the basis of science is philosophy all you want. Here is my proof to you that philosophy is useless when compared to science, next time you got seriously injured would you rather want to go to a hospital or would you rather go to a philosopher? Would you rather have aerodynamic scientists to be working on airplanes or philosophers? Want to send a man to the moon? Want scientists to work on that or philosophers?
Sure, philosophy have a lot of fun reads. But after years of studying it, I'm sorry to say I've found no real use for it. When push comes to shove, nobody wants to go to philosophers for help. They go to scientists.
™ Version 4.2
