Define "Intelligent Design"

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim1130
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps maybe a soft science…a very soft science 😉

[/quote]

Actually it is a higher form of science then the empirical sciences because it has a greater direct object.

The traditional definition of a science is the systematic investigation of a direct object. The direct object determines the dignity of the science or “level” higher or lower. It is only since the enlightenment that this notion has changed - the change was a deliberate attempt to negate the legitimacy of philosophy in particular metaphysics.
40.png
steveandersen:
IIRC empirical studies predate science and, while fine in themselves, lack the systematic rigor of modern science which not only observes and collects empirical data but also develops a explanation for the observations.
Click to expand...
Of course but the fundamental system is the same.
 
40.png
mosher:
Actually it is a higher form of science then the empirical sciences because it has a greater direct object.

The traditional definition of a science is the systematic investigation of a direct object. The direct object determines the dignity of the science or “level” higher or lower. It is only since the enlightenment that this notion has changed - the change was a deliberate attempt to negate the legitimacy of philosophy in particular metaphysics.

Of course but the fundamental system is the same.
Click to expand...
Would it be accurate to guess the notion of higher and lower levels of science was developed by theologians and philosophers?

I think the Enlightenment also led to modern natural science, which succeeded in many areas where other disciplines had failed.
 
40.png
Ortho:
Would it be accurate to guess the notion of higher and lower levels of science was developed by theologians and philosophers?

I think the Enlightenment also led to modern natural science, which succeeded in many areas where other disciplines had failed.
Click to expand...
No, actually the fundamental principle was developed fully by Aristotle first who was both a philosopher and a scientist [sic].

Actually it just follows from reason. The greater in dignity the object under investigation the greater in degree the science.
 
40.png
mosher:
No, actually the fundamental principle was developed fully by Aristotle first who was both a philosopher and a scientist [sic].

Actually it just follows from reason. The greater in dignity the object under investigation the greater in degree the science.
Click to expand...
Aristotle was a philosopher, but he was not a scientist who embraced the scientific method. Had he done so, he wouldn’t have left us with air, earth, fire, and water.

Can we say a discipline investigates an object if it has made no contribution to the improvement of the human condition since the Middle Ages? Does one have to have a track record of success in order to lay claim to investigation?

What is the greatest achievement of philosophy in the past 500 years? Theology? How has that achievement contributed to understanding the burning questions of humanity?

Or has the human condition actually improved since the Middle Ages?
 
40.png
Ortho:
Aristotle was a philosopher, but he was not a scientist who embraced the scientific method. Had he done so, he wouldn’t have left us with air, earth, fire, and water.

Can we say a discipline investigates an object if it has made no contribution to the improvement of the human condition since the Middle Ages? Does one have to have a track record of success in order to lay claim to investigation?

What is the greatest achievement of philosophy in the past 500 years? Theology? How has that achievement contributed to understanding the burning questions of humanity?

Or has the human condition actually improved since the Middle Ages?
Click to expand...
Your characterization is incorrect. He rejected the scientific method as being able to prove truth but he is still considered the greates zoologist to have ever lived.

No, it is not a requirement because as Socrates says the sublimity of the profession of the philospher is that he can sit on the steps and discuss a single topic for a life time and still come to no conclusion but still he has made much progress. Progress in the world of philosophy is not the same as coming to conclusions.

Yes, much as been done and much harm as been done by bad philosophy. I come into contact with people who spout Rand, Sartre, Nietzchie, Russel and others all the time who have never read their works and have barely heard of these people. Philosophers guide the way the world thinks whether people realize it or not. That is why it is paramount that good philosophy be done and espoused by those in the field. There have been great developments with the advent of some forms of Exestentialism, Personalism, the return of Thomism and other work that has been done in philosophy. Also, in particular to our day the work of ethics has taken a stong role in the world again especially in the world of bio-ethics.
 
40.png
mosher:
Your characterization is incorrect. He rejected the scientific method as being able to prove truth but he is still considered the greates zoologist to have ever lived.

No, it is not a requirement because as Socrates says the sublimity of the profession of the philospher is that he can sit on the steps and discuss a single topic for a life time and still come to no conclusion but still he has made much progress. Progress in the world of philosophy is not the same as coming to conclusions.

Yes, much as been done and much harm as been done by bad philosophy. I come into contact with people who spout Rand, Sartre, Nietzchie, Russel and others all the time who have never read their works and have barely heard of these people. Philosophers guide the way the world thinks whether people realize it or not. That is why it is paramount that good philosophy be done and espoused by those in the field. There have been great developments with the advent of some forms of Exestentialism, Personalism, the return of Thomism and other work that has been done in philosophy. Also, in particular to our day the work of ethics has taken a stong role in the world again especially in the world of bio-ethics.
Click to expand...
Aristotle might be more accurate to say the SM doesn’t prove scientific theories; it demonstrates confirmation of hypotheses. However, it does provide a true record of its demonstrations. So, a modern natural scientist can say a given experiment had a particular result. That’s true and simply relating past events.

We might also be more accurate if we said philosophy can prove some truth. It can’t tackle all areas and questions. And we have to ask how we know when philosophy has proved truth? There is disagreement among philosophers in the field. Why? Does philosophy provide a visible path to agreement?

I don’t denigrate or diminish philosophy; rather I have great admiration for it. However, I wonder if there is much more it will accomplish beyond passing on the learning of the past. Is philosophy stalled?

I know the challenges that lay in the future of modern natural science, and I have confidence many will be met. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the challenges that lay in the future of philosophy, and do we have reason to think they will be met?
 
40.png
Ortho:
Aristotle might be more accurate to say the SM doesn’t prove scientific theories; it demonstrates confirmation of hypotheses. However, it does provide a true record of its demonstrations. So, a modern natural scientist can say a given experiment had a particular result. That’s true and simply relating past events.

We might also be more accurate if we said philosophy can prove some truth. It can’t tackle all areas and questions. And we have to ask how we know when philosophy has proved truth? There is disagreement among philosophers in the field. Why? Does philosophy provide a visible path to agreement?

I don’t denigrate or diminish philosophy; rather I have great admiration for it. However, I wonder if there is much more it will accomplish beyond passing on the learning of the past. Is philosophy stalled?

I know the challenges that lay in the future of modern natural science, and I have confidence many will be met. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the challenges that lay in the future of philosophy, and do we have reason to think they will be met?
Click to expand...
It really depends on how you define philosophy. If we go to the basics we can say that basic old Aristotilian Logic can prove truth and the various disciplines of Philosophy discuss all the aspects surrounding that truth. It is a very rigorous discipline as it is very subtle at times. When I say that it deals with truth it is dealing with concepts or universals that apply to particular issues. Is philosophy going to invent a device - no. But, that is not its purpose. Its purpose is the investigation of reality, being, non-being, relations, memory, aesthetics, ethics, polotics, etc. There will never be a shortage in reasons to investigate these issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top