Is Philosophy and Science Dead?

[JDaniel]

Science = certain knowledge of things in terms of proper causes or reasons or principles, and demonstration is a syllogism productive of that knowledge. (- Posterior Analytics, Bk I, Ch 2, 71b, 8 - 16, 17 - 18).

Science = knowledge gained by means of deliberate experimentation and measurement. (- from Galileo, Bacon, 17th Century)

These are essentially the two primary definitions of science, the first one from Aristotle, that held until roughly the 17 th century, and the second, a combination of Galileo and Bacon from the 17th century until now.

Actually, today’s “science” seems to be a combination of both of the above. It must be remembered that the Aristotelian definition was not abandoned when the newer version came along, it was merely modified by the newer version. Scientists still use the syllogism to arrive at knowledge of something. In fact, in general, the dialectical syllogism, which is where science starts turns into demonstration as the measurements and experiments yield results that are more certain. Then the syllogism get re-worded. and becomes a hypothesis, which is often the starting point of seeming mass contentiousness!

Nowadays, we have split philosophy away from science. Why? Most likely because there are essentially two kinds of “thinkers,” in the world. There is the speculative thinker, which is one who can look at the results of an experiment and sees only the pile of ashes. Then, there is the non-speculative thinker who sees the ashes and wonders what its weight is now, after the burning process, and why is there a difference from whence he started.

Obviously, the non-speculative thinker is the more practical. Hence, his work results in useful stuff. The speculative thinker is the least practical, and his work results in nothing that can be used. I’m not sure that we can afford to dump one for the other though.

It is certain and clear, a good indication is from this forum, that the the two are still alive and well. It is certain that the speculative thinker is that thinker that keeps us close to God. In fact, the speculative thinker keeps the non-thinker close to God. Both jobs are important. While the non-speculative thinker gives us what we need to allow us the luxury of time to speculate.

Over the course of history, both the speculative thinker and the non-speculative thinker have been instrumental in carrying the masses forward. Often bellowing at one another. So, let’s look at some contributions.

What have we seen, in recent times, from the speculative thinker. Not much. That last great philosopher was probably Immanuel Kant. Then, we got some mediocre philosophers, from better to worse, like Wittgenstein to Marx. (Just my opinion.)

Perhaps Hawking is telling speculative thinkers to stop being so languid. Produce. Maybe he’s just smart enough to know that it takes both types of thought to truly advance the race.

God bless,
jd.

 

[R_Daneel]

Nowadays, we have split philosophy away from science. Why? Most likely because there are essentially two kinds of “thinkers,” in the world. There is the speculative thinker, which is one who can look at the results of an experiment and sees only the pile of ashes. Then, there is the non-speculative thinker who sees the ashes and wonders what its weight is now, after the burning process, and why is there a difference from whence he started.

Obviously, the non-speculative thinker is the more practical. Hence, his work results in useful stuff. The speculative thinker is the least practical, and his work results in nothing that can be used.

Good thoughts, well expressed.

I’m not sure that we can afford to dump one for the other though.

Dump which one? I am only semi-serious here. It is very sad to see the outright and pervasive hostility on this board toward the “materialists”, who are “bogged down” in some “sordid scientism”.

It is certain that the speculative thinker is that thinker that keeps us close to God.

If only it could be shown that it is a worthy endeavor and not chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

While the non-speculative thinker gives us what we need to allow us the luxury of time to speculate.

How very true! I always grin when I think of the speculators who are well-fed, who can afford to be improductive, who are a “burden” on the back of the productive ones. But that is fine. Fortunately we can afford it. As a mental exercise, pure speculation is good. It can sharpen the thinking process. The only problem occurs if we take speculation too seriously.

And to answer the title of the thread: “Science is alive and well. It is philosophy which is dying.”

 

[Leela]

Here are a couple other definitions of science.

(1) Science as a body of knowledge is the set of all things we have good reason to believe. (In other words, if we have good reason to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, it is scientifically true. If not, not.) This is a very broad definition science hat us used by the likes of Sam Harris.

(2) Science as a practice is our collective endeavor to reach consensus on a single account of reality that best enables us to predict and control. This is a more restrictive definition and the one I prefer. It takes into account that scientific knowledge is aimed at the specific human concerns of making predictions and making fruitful use of our surroundings. It allows for other possible concerns for knowledge that do not represent attempt to participate in the public project of doing science. For example, when I say that I love my children, I am saying something that is true, but I am not doing science. I am not trying to predict and control anything.

 

[Leela]

Here are a couple definitions of philosophy.

(1) Philosophy in the narrow Platonic sense is the attempt to get past appearances to reality as it really is. (Hawking is right to say that this sort of philosophy is dead.)

(2) Sellars defined philosophy as the attempt to get things in the broadest sense of the term to hang together in the broadest sense of the term. This sort of philosophy is a live project.

 

[JDaniel]

Good thoughts, well expressed.

RD: Thank you. You are a gentleman.

Dump which one? I am only semi-serious here. It is very sad to see the outright and pervasive hostility on this board toward the “materialists”, who are “bogged down” in some “sordid scientism”.

But, you know, both sides can tell who they are. Sometimes, those not permeated with “scientism” will say something to seem as though they are - at least on these fora. And, occasionally, they have to be enlightened of their error.

How very true! I always grin when I think of the speculators who are well-fed, who can afford to be improductive, who are a “burden” on the back of the productive ones. But that is fine. Fortunately we can afford it. As a mental exercise, pure speculation is good. It can sharpen the thinking process. The only problem occurs if we take speculation too seriously.

Well, I think we should take it somewhat seriously. But, really, the only ones who can do that are the seriously good ones. This forum is a great testing ground for future good ones. As well, there may be a few diamonds in the rough here, too.

And to answer the title of the thread: “Science is alive and well. It is philosophy which is dying.”

And, on that one, Sir, we shall disagree.

But, let me ask you a question. Is causation gone? Does gravity cause bodies to
fall? Does fire cause smoke?

I suppose one can explain smoke by defining what fire does to a material and how the heat turns the material into carbon and oxygen, plus some other chemicals. But, in the case of gravity, there is no similar explanation, per se.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, I think we should take it somewhat seriously. But, really, the only ones who can do that are the seriously good ones. This forum is a great testing ground for future good ones. As well, there may be a few diamonds in the rough here, too.

Yes, there can be. I have had the honor of being corrected a few times, when my error was pointed out by the conversation partner (I would not call them opponents!). And also during the long years I spent on the board I definitely learned a lot, so my time was well spent. Furthermore, the exchanges allowed my to distill my thoughts in the face of opposing ideas. So I think that speculation has its place under the Sun - as a tool to sharpen one’s thinking process.

And, on that one, Sir, we shall disagree.

Well, “dying” is a relative term. I don’t mean that speculation will ever disappear, so we may not disagree completely. I think, however, that speculation gradually loses its significance - anf becomes a wonderful mind-game.

But, let me ask you a question. Is causation gone? Does gravity cause bodies to fall? Does fire cause smoke?

I suppose one can explain smoke by defining what fire does to a material and how the heat turns the material into carbon and oxygen, plus some other chemicals. But, in the case of gravity, there is no similar explanation, per se.

Well, gravity is hard problem. It is hypothesised that “gravitons” exist, but gravity is such an incredibly weak force that their existence has not been measured yet. The existing particle colliders are simply not large enough.

I don’t think that causation is “gone”. It is viewed as an interaction of physical particles.

Side remark: I started a new thread when I was unable to dig out the old one about the “free will” defense. Swing by if you want to.

 

[CSJB]

Actually, Philosophy, in its proper sense, will die when the world does. In the meantime, we are stuck with it.

 

[xopher]

Perhaps to address the issue of philosophy specifically is not the same as addressing the issue of “speculative thinking” in all it encompasses, however, I have felt that our philosophies drive us to use science to come to solid conclusions on matters which are relevant to faith and morals.

Furthermore, I consider myself an amateur philosopher to some degree. Being a fan of Romero’s films, I believe they hold some philosophical value that the greater portion of society pays little attention to. However, I’ll admit that philosophy on this level is more personal as it held value to me in my situation as a young boy growing up in a non-Christian home. I know it’s not Christian on an obvious level, but as a neglected depressed young boy, George Romero’s Living Dead saga communicated subtle messages of hope and survival to me that I did not get from my protestant church or my messed up family.

In other words, the style of philosophy that we see today tends to be more personal and seems to be more metaphor and analogy styled, which is usually conveyed through mediums that mainstream society doesn’t merit as “serious”, such as comic books, movies, and independent music. Many comic books, songs, and movies are written off as nothing more than gratuitous unproductive entertainment, when in actuality they are very commentative and philosophical, passing on ideas and “wisdom” to more creative right brained people like myself that have the style of perception to pick up these messages.

But of course, people who are more left-brained logical seldom give this notion much credence. (sigh)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*And to answer the title of the thread: “Science is alive and well. It is philosophy which is dying.” *

This is balderdash!!!

Philosophy is not merely speculative, though to read the above posts, that is its only purpose. Philosophy is an attempt to get at the reasons behind things, the why; whereas science is an attempt to explain how. When “sordid scientism” concludes that there is no why, only the hows, and only science can handle the hows, it shows the poverty of its own imagination, its own arrogance, and ultimately offers only a bleak view of the universe as a rather pale and meaningless place in which we serve no ultimate purpose whatever.

The human race at large really hates this kind of arrogance. That is why scientists, who are often admired for their intellect, are also despised for their lack of heart. They are narrow minded and bigoted toward everyone who does not bow to their sloppy thinking outside the realm of science.

Science cannot decide questions of morality, politics, art, epistemology, logic, etc. Even the axioms and postulates of scientific inquiry are more properly defined as philosophical, rather than scientific. Ever heard of the Philosophy of Science?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

[greylorn]

Science = certain knowledge of things in terms of proper causes or reasons or principles, and demonstration is a syllogism productive of that knowledge. (- Posterior Analytics, Bk I, Ch 2, 71b, 8 - 16, 17 - 18).

Science = knowledge gained by means of deliberate experimentation and measurement. (- from Galileo, Bacon, 17th Century)

These are essentially the two primary definitions of science, the first one from Aristotle, that held until roughly the 17 th century, and the second, a combination of Galileo and Bacon from the 17th century until now.

Actually, today’s “science” seems to be a combination of both of the above. It must be remembered that the Aristotelian definition was not abandoned when the newer version came along, it was merely modified by the newer version. Scientists still use the syllogism to arrive at knowledge of something. In fact, in general, the dialectical syllogism, which is where science starts turns into demonstration as the measurements and experiments yield results that are more certain. Then the syllogism get re-worded. and becomes a hypothesis, which is often the starting point of seeming mass contentiousness!

Nowadays, we have split philosophy away from science. Why? Most likely because there are essentially two kinds of “thinkers,” in the world. There is the speculative thinker, which is one who can look at the results of an experiment and sees only the pile of ashes. Then, there is the non-speculative thinker who sees the ashes and wonders what its weight is now, after the burning process, and why is there a difference from whence he started.

Obviously, the non-speculative thinker is the more practical. Hence, his work results in useful stuff. The speculative thinker is the least practical, and his work results in nothing that can be used. I’m not sure that we can afford to dump one for the other though.

(Two paragraphs omitted, for space.)

What have we seen, in recent times, from the speculative thinker. Not much. That last great philosopher was probably Immanuel Kant. Then, we got some mediocre philosophers, from better to worse, like Wittgenstein to Marx. (Just my opinion.)

Perhaps Hawking is telling speculative thinkers to stop being so languid. Produce. Maybe he’s just smart enough to know that it takes both types of thought to truly advance the race.

God bless,
jd.

JD,
Yours is a well written O.P… However, as a seriously speculative thinker, I feel compelled to point out its fallacies, the consequence of an omission.

This might have been avoided if you took Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions into account and described science in modern terms, rather than by centuries-old ideas. Of the three guys you mentioned, only Galileo was a scientist of the modern kind, but as the first such person, he was too close to his work to see all aspects of it. If you’ve not read Kuhn, I believe that you will appreciate him. He, too, is a good philosopher, and you seem to share his interests. For you, his book will be a quick read.

Now, to work.

The component of science omitted from your referenced definitions is what you later call speculative. “Theoretical” would be more appropriate. You can perform experiments and take measurements until hell reaches 0 degrees Kelvin without understanding one single thing about how the universe or any aspect thereof works.

Science works because it develops and tests theories about how something ought to work. Theories are developed by inductive reasoning. and perhaps very rarely, by deductive reasoning. In other words, someone looks at some data, wonders about it, and after a time spontaneously comes up with a theory which might explain it.

Eventually, if the theory interests some experimental types, they get to work and either verify it or disprove it. I submit, respectfully, that your entire fourth paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with how real scientists work. Few of them know what a syllogism is, and those who know, don’t care.

Philosophy has split itself away from science, which it accomplished by becoming increasingly irrelevant. “We” had nothing to do with it.

Part of the problem is that few, if any philosophers understand a whit of physics. Yet they feel qualified to discuss it. On the other hand, any marginally competent physicist can understand philosophy (apart from the unfortunate and unnecessary jargon which philosophers have adopted for their formal discussions). Philosophy, after all, is simply human discourse about the mysteries which envelop all humans. I took it up in fourth grade. I wrote a philosophy book before taking a single course in it. The only problem I had in the course was memorizing dumb ideas long enough to parrot them back on an exam.

It seemed silly to me to memorize an inept thesis in its entirety, when its false premises had become evident after a paragraph or a page. As a result, I have little respect for the formal study of philosophy.

Speculative thinkers are still with us, but philosophy ignores them almost entirely. I am a perfect example of this. Although Douglas Hofstadter included my material in “The Mind’s I,” he used it entirely out of context, and personally admitted that. That excerpted material has been incorporated into several philosophy courses, but none of them bothered to include the book of which they were part. Truly speculative thinkers are as welcome in philosophy as a stinkbomb at a perfumer’s convention.

I agree completely with your penultimate paragraph. Philosophy has been practicing irrelevancy since Kant last wrote. It reaps what it sowed.

 

[greylorn]

Perhaps to address the issue of philosophy specifically is not the same as addressing the issue of “speculative thinking” in all it encompasses, however, I have felt that our philosophies drive us to use science to come to solid conclusions on matters which are relevant to faith and morals.

Furthermore, I consider myself an amateur philosopher to some degree. Being a fan of Romero’s films, I believe they hold some philosophical value that the greater portion of society pays little attention to. However, I’ll admit that philosophy on this level is more personal as it held value to me in my situation as a young boy growing up in a non-Christian home. I know it’s not Christian on an obvious level, but as a neglected depressed young boy, George Romero’s Living Dead saga communicated subtle messages of hope and survival to me that I did not get from my protestant church or my messed up family.

In other words, the style of philosophy that we see today tends to be more personal and seems to be more metaphor and analogy styled, which is usually conveyed through mediums that mainstream society doesn’t merit as “serious”, such as comic books, movies, and independent music. Many comic books, songs, and movies are written off as nothing more than gratuitous unproductive entertainment, when in actuality they are very commentative and philosophical, passing on ideas and “wisdom” to more creative right brained people like myself that have the style of perception to pick up these messages.

But of course, people who are more left-brained logical seldom give this notion much credence. (sigh)

As a left-brained (and right-handed) person, I object to your conclusion. I’ve read serious philosophy, and, when a nitwit kid, comic books. I’ve watched and analyzed hundreds of movies and even written a few screenplays. I’ve even gotten stuck listening to rap music for a few minutes at a gas station. All of these can contain philosophy, at some level.

The question is, which level? Comic books offer half-baked philosophy for children. Movies typically imply their underlying philosophies, which are simply echoes of what various mass groups believe. I love some music, but find little philosophy in it. Rap noise (mistakenly called music) offers political rants for the mindless.

If you actually think that those venues offer worthwhile philosophy, may I suggest a goat entrail reading?

 

[curtish1947]

JD,
Yours is a well written O.P… However, as a seriously speculative thinker, I feel compelled to point out its fallacies, the consequence of an omission…

Now, to work. curtish1947 edits to Graylorn are in ((blue))

The component of science omitted from your referenced definitions is what you later call speculative. “Theoretical” would be more appropriate. You can perform experiments and take measurements until hell reaches 0 degrees Kelvin without understanding one single thing about how the universe or any aspect thereof works.

Science works because it develops and tests theories about how something ((might work)) ought to work. Theories are developed by inductive reasoning. and perhaps very rarely, by deductive reasoning. In other words, someone looks at some data, wonders about it, and after a time ((takes a guess)) spontaneously comes up with a theory which might explain it.

Eventually, if the theory interests some experimental types, they get to work and either verify it or disprove it. ((Occasionally, both types exist in the same person.)) I submit, respectfully, that your entire fourth paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with how real scientists work. ((Correct)) Few of them know what a syllogism is, and those who know, don’t care. ((I have no clue))

Philosophy has split itself away from science, which it accomplished by becoming increasingly irrelevant. “We” had nothing to do with it. ((I wish they wouldn’t. When proven, philosophy is important.))

Part of the problem is that few, if any philosophers understand a whit of physics. Yet they feel qualified to discuss it. On the other hand, any marginally competent physicist can understand philosophy (apart from the unfortunate and unnecessary jargon which philosophers have adopted for their formal discussions). Philosophy, after all, is simply human discourse about the mysteries which envelop all humans. I took it up in fourth grade. I wrote a philosophy book before taking a single course in it. The only problem I had in the course was memorizing dumb ideas long enough to parrot them back on an exam…

I agree completely with your penultimate paragraph. Philosophy has been practicing irrelevancy since Kant last wrote. It reaps what it sowed.

Hi Graylorn,

In short this whole verbage following this is going to agree with your presented view on science, not by opinion, but by what I used every day when working in Semiconductors.

It somehow is a pleasure to listen to you correct what I find are the lunacies of false facts elevated to a ism, like humanism. (A false fact is stated. No one objects. Rancor follows. Ism’s result. No one, it seems ever seems to care if the original fact was correct.)

I am not a philosopher, per se. I have worked in science, and, at one point behind my back was known as the guy who could solve anything. That is then, this is now, and I no longer hold or think that is possibly true. I didn’t think it was true then either, but they had their way and looking back, the relative accomplishments were astounding, even to me.

In science I use math, when needed. I use logic when needed, others use it too, and when we fail in logic, it is quite embarassing, but held in good humor and a warning. Continuations of logical errors is not allowed, and someone else gets to do what you used to do, should this persist.

In science, data speaks, data drives the company, all else fails. That is not to say, that some companies do not use opinion, but, their ruination is determined then. Only the final date of their demise is not known.

I have heard that Philosophy produced Math and Logic. They proved it. They then gave it to everyone and somehow, stopped trying to prove anything else. They also do not seem to tell everyone, they produced Math and Logic as a proven product. I wonder about that, if it is true what I hear.

I am only commenting on science. It is what I did. I was also experimental. In that field, I asked my most admired producer of equations that actually worked and were used in every day life, how he did it.

He said: “You take a guess and try to prove it wrong.” This works. I try to prove my own guess wrong. I do it.

In practice, to avoid error, I use some elements of philolophy, to avoid mental laziness. I also, when being able by experimentation, fail to prove something wrong, take the next step and ask others to see if they can prove it wrong.

Only when it passes all tests, and then time, it is presented to everyone, who needs it. In the background, I dread error. I dread the possibility of error. So, for every idea or solution provided, I know, it is still possible in my mind, for there to be an exception, but. The but is when exceptions come up, is to usually give a greater insight, and knowledge into something that was merely, because of human limitations, mostly right. It is then more right later.

The mostly right to more right, does not happen often. The only time it did was on a personal project. Personal projects sometimes are hampered by a lack of measurable observations.

So you are right, in my own work, on how scientists work. We do understand philosophy. We use a different definition than theirs. We also, some of us, not only know God scientifically, when the bigotry of science is removed, but we can prove it.

That proof is reviewable. That proof is doable by anyone. Einstein was understood only in the proofs, their proofs. When others tested his ideas they believed in what he said. Their only understanding typically, is the outrageous statements he makes are somehow true, by experimentation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

curtish

Philosophy has been practicing irrelevancy since Kant last wrote. It reaps what it sowed.

This is true to a degree. There are no thinkers today of the stature of Kant. That doesn’t mean that philosophy is dead, or that it is useless. Philosophy properly defined is the study of wisdom. People everywhere are looking for wisdom … insight … into all things. This is where science is clueless. Science wants nothing to do with wisdom. It only wants to know *how *things work, not why they work. Science is concerned with what is; philosophy is concerned with what ought to be. Our civilization today is in the mess it is in because there is plenty of effort put into science and hardly any effort to produce wisdom. The pile-up of nuclear weapons is proof enough of that horrible truth. The use of them will be the end of both science and wisdom.

 

[greylorn]

Hi Graylorn,

In short this whole verbage following this is going to agree with your presented view on science, not by opinion, but by what I used every day when working in Semiconductors.

It somehow is a pleasure to listen to you correct what I find are the lunacies of false facts elevated to a ism, like humanism. (A false fact is stated. No one objects. Rancor follows. Ism’s result. No one, it seems ever seems to care if the original fact was correct.)

I am not a philosopher, per se. I have worked in science, and, at one point behind my back was known as the guy who could solve anything. That is then, this is now, and I no longer hold or think that is possibly true. I didn’t think it was true then either, but they had their way and looking back, the relative accomplishments were astounding, even to me.

In science I use math, when needed. I use logic when needed, others use it too, and when we fail in logic, it is quite embarassing, but held in good humor and a warning. Continuations of logical errors is not allowed, and someone else gets to do what you used to do, should this persist.

In science, data speaks, data drives the company, all else fails. That is not to say, that some companies do not use opinion, but, their ruination is determined then. Only the final date of their demise is not known.

I have heard that Philosophy produced Math and Logic. They proved it. They then gave it to everyone and somehow, stopped trying to prove anything else. They also do not seem to tell everyone, they produced Math and Logic as a proven product. I wonder about that, if it is true what I hear.

I am only commenting on science. It is what I did. I was also experimental. In that field, I asked my most admired producer of equations that actually worked and were used in every day life, how he did it.

He said: “You take a guess and try to prove it wrong.” This works. I try to prove my own guess wrong. I do it.

In practice, to avoid error, I use some elements of philolophy, to avoid mental laziness. I also, when being able by experimentation, fail to prove something wrong, take the next step and ask others to see if they can prove it wrong.

Only when it passes all tests, and then time, it is presented to everyone, who needs it. In the background, I dread error. I dread the possibility of error. So, for every idea or solution provided, I know, it is still possible in my mind, for there to be an exception, but. The but is when exceptions come up, is to usually give a greater insight, and knowledge into something that was merely, because of human limitations, mostly right. It is then more right later.

The mostly right to more right, does not happen often. The only time it did was on a personal project. Personal projects sometimes are hampered by a lack of measurable observations.

So you are right, in my own work, on how scientists work. We do understand philosophy. We use a different definition than theirs. We also, some of us, not only know God scientifically, when the bigotry of science is removed, but we can prove it.

That proof is reviewable. That proof is doable by anyone. Einstein was understood only in the proofs, their proofs. When others tested his ideas they believed in what he said. Their only understanding typically, is the outrageous statements he makes are somehow true, by experimentation.

Curious that you originally expressed someone else’s theory about how science works. It feels a lot better telling your own truth, especially when it is derived from real experience, does it not?

You expressed very well the methods of real idea generation and problem solving. Been there, done that. Sounds to me like you’re an engineer by trade. Did you realize that while science claims that it depends upon research verification for its success, the truth is that engineers are the ones who keep science honest.

If a theory is any good, some engineers will use it to build something. That can’t happen with a faulty theory. We get no credit.

Your comments about being corrected reflect your background. You’ve been corrected before by devices that didn’t work, like I’ve been corrected by stupid machines which do what amounts to counting on two fingers, rapidly and accurately. It breeds a certain humility. Perhaps you can safely appreciate a correction because you realize that corrections leave knowledge in their wake, and sometimes a bit of wisdom. The overabundance of thin-skinned dogmatists in these forums could learn from you.

Feel free to annotate my remarks anytime. Good job of it. We should get into an argument sometime.

 

[curtish1947]

Curious that you originally expressed someone else’s theory about how science works. It feels a lot better telling your own truth, especially when it is derived from real experience, does it not?

You expressed very well the methods of real idea generation and problem solving. Been there, done that. Sounds to me like you’re an engineer by trade. Did you realize that while science claims that it depends upon research verification for its success, the truth is that engineers are the ones who keep science honest.

If a theory is any good, some engineers will use it to build something. That can’t happen with a faulty theory. We get no credit.

Your comments about being corrected reflect your background. You’ve been corrected before by devices that didn’t work, like I’ve been corrected by stupid machines which do what amounts to counting on two fingers, rapidly and accurately. It breeds a certain humility. Perhaps you can safely appreciate a correction because you realize that corrections leave knowledge in their wake, and sometimes a bit of wisdom. The overabundance of thin-skinned dogmatists in these forums could learn from you.

Feel free to annotate my remarks anytime. Good job of it. We should get into an argument sometime.

Hi,
On expressing my own experiences, that cue came from you, when you wrote something to the effect of; “I have been writing about Philosophy from my youth.”
I just figured what the heck. I’ll be me, whatever that is. I have a hard time quantifying that, really.
Now, before I start blubbering about your most pleasant response, I will pull my emotions in to do some work.
You interest me, therefore, from a grease monkey, sort of, I have a proof of The Reality of The Bible, that needs testing by others. I got my answers you might get another. This verification of work is an old established procedure, (although not documented that I have ever heard of.), that anyone who is forced into the position of trying to be correct, that one does. It is especially important, when the costs are too high when you are wrong.
The proof follows my method. Study. Study. Study. When you think you know what is going on, test it. If it passes that, test again. If it keeps passing, and the answers converge, then you are possibly going to have it right. Next, is to tell all your, just close friends. See if they can prove your theory wrong. (It’s a lot less embarassing that way.) If they cannot prove it wrong either, or even if they say it is right, it is still necessary, (In my world), to expand the audience even further. If is survives that, tell everyone, and see if it survives that.

The Theory of "Is The Bible Real, has withstood the 15 years or so of my work, and it is now going out, hopefully, to the larger audience. It is presently with two people whom I know, and will not fry me, if it proves wrong.
Would you have the time, to make it a third? I would like that, from you. Please feel free to say no. What you will gain, if it is correct, is an incredible insight, like Physics gives, into what is real and what is not. As Physics allows you, to sort through dialogue and separate fact from fantasy, this works for me likewise. Also, this work, when it was completed, added another tool for separating, truth from imagination or worse.
Although, not ordinarily done, my schedule and lack of expertise with this site, will allow me to risk others whom, I don’t wish yet to contact me. My email is: curtish1947@gmail.com should you not hear from me.

…Curt…

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
On expressing my own experiences, that cue came from you, when you wrote something to the effect of; “I have been writing about Philosophy from my youth.”
I just figured what the heck. I’ll be me, whatever that is. I have a hard time quantifying that, really.
Now, before I start blubbering about your most pleasant response, I will pull my emotions in to do some work.
You interest me, therefore, from a grease monkey, sort of, I have a proof of The Reality of The Bible, that needs testing by others. I got my answers you might get another. This verification of work is an old established procedure, (although not documented that I have ever heard of.), that anyone who is forced into the position of trying to be correct, that one does. It is especially important, when the costs are too high when you are wrong.
The proof follows my method. Study. Study. Study. When you think you know what is going on, test it. If it passes that, test again. If it keeps passing, and the answers converge, then you are possibly going to have it right. Next, is to tell all your, just close friends. See if they can prove your theory wrong. (It’s a lot less embarassing that way.) If they cannot prove it wrong either, or even if they say it is right, it is still necessary, (In my world), to expand the audience even further. If is survives that, tell everyone, and see if it survives that.

The Theory of "Is The Bible Real, has withstood the 15 years or so of my work, and it is now going out, hopefully, to the larger audience. It is presently with two people whom I know, and will not fry me, if it proves wrong.
Would you have the time, to make it a third? I would like that, from you. Please feel free to say no. What you will gain, if it is correct, is an incredible insight, like Physics gives, into what is real and what is not. As Physics allows you, to sort through dialogue and separate fact from fantasy, this works for me likewise. Also, this work, when it was completed, added another tool for separating, truth from imagination or worse.
Although, not ordinarily done, my schedule and lack of expertise with this site, will allow me to risk others whom, I don’t wish yet to contact me. My email is: curtish1947@gmail.com should you not hear from me.

…Curt…

OOPS!!
I forgot to say, that is only one method, I use in research. I define research simply as work I or no one I know of has done before. Somehow, in all the years of work, no single method ever seems to be used. I don’t even know what my true method is.

In all cases, what I strive for, and get sometimes, is that one to one correlation. I also strive for, what I call a 120% solution. The, mathematically incorrect 20%, is just a memory aid to me to try and make the work so anyone can reapeat it and to make sure, if possible it is documented so well, that the next researcher does not have to do this work over again.

The Bible is Real work is a one to one correlation.

 

[greylorn]

Hi,
On expressing my own experiences, that cue came from you, when you wrote something to the effect of; “I have been writing about Philosophy from my youth.”
I just figured what the heck. I’ll be me, whatever that is. I have a hard time quantifying that, really.
Now, before I start blubbering about your most pleasant response, I will pull my emotions in to do some work.
You interest me, therefore, from a grease monkey, sort of, I have a proof of The Reality of The Bible, that needs testing by others. I got my answers you might get another. This verification of work is an old established procedure, (although not documented that I have ever heard of.), that anyone who is forced into the position of trying to be correct, that one does. It is especially important, when the costs are too high when you are wrong.
The proof follows my method. Study. Study. Study. When you think you know what is going on, test it. If it passes that, test again. If it keeps passing, and the answers converge, then you are possibly going to have it right. Next, is to tell all your, just close friends. See if they can prove your theory wrong. (It’s a lot less embarassing that way.) If they cannot prove it wrong either, or even if they say it is right, it is still necessary, (In my world), to expand the audience even further. If is survives that, tell everyone, and see if it survives that.

The Theory of "Is The Bible Real, has withstood the 15 years or so of my work, and it is now going out, hopefully, to the larger audience. It is presently with two people whom I know, and will not fry me, if it proves wrong.
Would you have the time, to make it a third? I would like that, from you. Please feel free to say no. What you will gain, if it is correct, is an incredible insight, like Physics gives, into what is real and what is not. As Physics allows you, to sort through dialogue and separate fact from fantasy, this works for me likewise. Also, this work, when it was completed, added another tool for separating, truth from imagination or worse.
Although, not ordinarily done, my schedule and lack of expertise with this site, will allow me to risk others whom, I don’t wish yet to contact me. My email is: curtish1947@gmail.com should you not hear from me.

…Curt…

The CAF provides an excellent private message service which can be used to communicate things like an email address to a selected individual, or several such.

I’m not the best person to invite to a critique of anything which claims the Bible to be the inspired word of God. I’ve studied the Bible, and the Kaballah, and enough of the history behind them, to have long ago become disabused of the notion that they are inspired by anything other than the human tendency to invent stories. Moreover, I am a ruthless critic of all ideas, my own included, and have hired an editor more ruthless than myself to keep my book on point and logical. Past experience reviewing the works of others has been a waste of my time, because most writers cannot abide being told that they’ve just written something which sucks. So, I would only tackle that job if I was being paid my normal hourly day job fee (which is quite high) or if I had prior evidence that I was dealing with a writer committed to logic, who had already expressed interesting and unique ideas. So, for the moment, I must respectfully decline your offer. Keep on your path, nonetheless. I’m certain that others on CAF who are more favorably disposed to treat the Bible as God’s genuine revelation will assist you.

Incidentally, from personal experience I’ve learned that friends are not trustworthy reviewers. They will not risk your friendship by telling you something like, “Look, I’m sorry to break the news, buddy, but this is a bunch of bull poo.” If you are serious, you should be writing something publishable. And if that is your track, you must hire ruthless editors and take their advice, and write, write, write until your fingers are bent.