Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

So you’re not actually arguing for philosophy, just for the bits you happen to like.

I’m arguing for good philosophy over bad philosophy, just as you would argue for good science over bad science.

**Yes, you’re saying knowledge is power and hindsight is wisdom. **

Obviously I’m not defining wisdom as insight derived after a catastrophe. but rather wisdom exercised before a catastrophe. It is wisdom to learn from our mistakes. It is greater wisdom to avoid making those mistakes because you can see that certain actions have certain consequences. Science is knowledge. It is not wisdom.

Knowledge is power only if it is good knowledge dedicated to a good purpose. The knowledge acquired of how to exterminate as many Jews as possible as fast as possible was a product of bad science and bad philosophy.

 

[inocente]

I’m arguing for good philosophy over bad philosophy, just as you would argue for good science over bad science.

Bad science and bad philosophy are defined by failing to meet professional standards. In philosophy that means a non-existent, incoherent or fallacious argument.

But my impression is you’re instead defining good and bad by your feelings about the results. E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is excellent science, even though we may not like some of the applications. If Nietzsche’s arguments are sound then he’s a good philosopher, whatever our opinion of his work.

Obviously I’m not defining wisdom as insight derived after a catastrophe. but rather wisdom exercised before a catastrophe. It is wisdom to learn from our mistakes. It is greater wisdom to avoid making those mistakes because you can see that certain actions have certain consequences. Science is knowledge. It is not wisdom.

Wisdom is the application of knowledge. We don’t elect philosophers or scientists to decide how to apply knowledge on our behalf, we elect politicians.

Knowledge is power only if it is good knowledge dedicated to a good purpose. The knowledge acquired of how to exterminate as many Jews as possible as fast as possible was a product of bad science and bad philosophy.

Knowledge is power unless you’re saying Hitler wielded weakness over his victims.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bad science and bad philosophy are defined by failing to meet professional standards. In philosophy that means a non-existent, incoherent or fallacious argument.

But my impression is you’re instead defining good and bad by your feelings about the results. E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is excellent science, even though we may not like some of the applications. If Nietzsche’s arguments are sound then he’s a good philosopher, whatever our opinion of his work.

Wisdom is the application of knowledge. We don’t elect philosophers or scientists to decide how to apply knowledge on our behalf, we elect politicians.

Actually, in modern western democracies we elect politicians to apply mediocrity on our behalf. It is average intelligence and mediocre practical wisdom that rules in modern democracies. You can’t claim that anything like qualitative knowledge is applied by politicians, even when they are actually acting on behalf of the electors.

Knowledge is power unless you’re saying Hitler wielded weakness over his victims.

No, power is power and sometimes ignorance and folly wield power. Charlemagne’s point is that true knowledge only obtains power when those in power are under the sway of wisdom and good philosophy to implement truth. Otherwise, it’s a **** shoot.

I am looking forward to a non-reply from you.

It is an interesting experience watching someone shoot themselves in the foot. Refusing to read rebuttals to arguments you present on a public forum is showing about as much pragmatic wisdom as refusing to swat a pesky mosquito because it had the gall to bite you the first time.

Oh, well, I am looking forward to freely assailing your points without having to face your sardonic wit each time.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Knowledge is power unless you’re saying Hitler wielded weakness over his victims.**

Hitler wielded both bad knowledge and power over his victims, which is why he too perished.

** E = mc2 is excellent science, even though we may not like some of the applications.**

The application we are talking about (the bomb) is a philosophically and scientifically bad application.

If Nietzsche’s arguments are sound then he’s a good philosopher, whatever our opinion of his work.

Which of Nietzsche’s arguments would you say is sound?

We don’t elect philosophers or scientists to decide how to apply knowledge on our behalf, we elect politicians.

We elect them hoping they will be influenced by good philosophers and scientists rather than bad ones.

 

[inocente]

The application we are talking about (the bomb) is a philosophically and scientifically bad application.

By your value judgment. The wisdom of hindsight - if Hitler had the Bomb and the US didn’t, you’d now be ruled by Nazis and your hindsight would be different.

But it wasn’t philosophers or scientists who paid for and deployed the Bomb, it was elected politicians. The US is the only nation to use the Bomb in anger and has a massive stockpile, and that is due to the politicians chosen by your electorate, not to philosophers and scientists, even though it might be convenient to try to make them the scapegoats.

Which of Nietzsche’s arguments would you say is sound?

I’m not arguing for him, you understand there’s a difference between the robustness or otherwise of his arguments and whether you personally like them?

We elect them hoping they will be influenced by good philosophers and scientists rather than bad ones.

No we don’t. When did Fox ever once report on which politicians have been influenced by which philosophers and scientists?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

But it wasn’t philosophers or scientists who paid for and deployed the Bomb, it was elected politicians. The US is the only nation to use the Bomb in anger and has a massive stockpile, and that is due to the politicians chosen by your electorate, not to philosophers and scientists, even though it might be convenient to try to make them the scapegoats.

This letter from Einstein to Roosevelt has been brought to your attention on another thread, and you now conveniently choose to forget it? Scientists did not initiate a wicked branch of science?

                                         Albert Einstein
                                         Old Grove Rd.
                                         Nassau Point
                                         Peconic, Long Island

                                         August 2nd 1939

F.D. Roosevelt
President of the United States
White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

  Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem

to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part

of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring

to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

  In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -

through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in

America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction

in a large mass of uranium,by which vast amounts of power and large quant-

ities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears

almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

  This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,

and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-

ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this

type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy

the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,

such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by

air.

   The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate

quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia.

while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.

  In view of the situation you may think it desirable to have more

permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group

of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way

of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person

who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial

capacity. His task might comprise the following:

  a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the

further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action,

giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uran-

ium ore for the United States;

  b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being car-

ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by

providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with y

private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause,

and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories

which have the necessary equipment.

  I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium

from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should

have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground

that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, is

attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut in Berlin where some of the

American work on uranium is now being repeated.

                                        Yours very truly,
                                         signature
                                        (Albert Einstein)

This letter was followed by three more letters from Einstein to FDR urging the bomb.

**No we don’t. When did Fox ever once report on which politicians have been influenced by which philosophers and scientists? **

Why do you choose to make yourself look ridiculous with these remarks?

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry, couldn’t make any sense of that.

Belittling anything which challenges prejudices isn’t philosophy.

Approving everything which happens to confirm the status quo isn’t philosophy.

imho you and two or three others here are not arguing for philosophy at all, but merely against any ideas you don’t happen to like and for received dogmas you do happen to like.

There is no point in attempting to have any further discussions with you because you do not understand that your anti-philosophical statements are philosophical - in addition to constantly ignoring the questions and statements in the other person’s posts.

 

[inocente]

But it wasn’t philosophers or scientists who paid for and deployed the Bomb, it was elected politicians. The US is the only nation to use the Bomb in anger and has a massive stockpile, and that is due to the politicians chosen by your electorate, not to philosophers and scientists, even though it might be convenient to try to make them the scapegoats.

This letter from Einstein to Roosevelt has been brought to your attention on another thread, and you now conveniently choose to forget it? Scientists did not initiate a wicked branch of science?

Don’t be silly, you even quoted me. I said it wasn’t philosophers or scientists who paid for and deployed the Bomb. How does that letter pay for and deploy the Bomb?

The cost of the Manhatten Project in today’s money was $24.1 billion. You claim one little Jewish scientist paid that $24.1 billion? Einstein wasn’t even an American citizen when he signed that letter (which he didn’t even write). You claim one little German got 130,000 Americans to work on the project? You claim he talked the USAF into bombing Japan?

It was an American president who initiated the project, American citizens who paid for the Bomb, American citizens who built the Bomb, an American president who decided to use the Bomb, and American citizens who dropped the Bomb. Don’t come your wicked history denial with me. Take responsibility for your nation’s actions and stop trying to blame it on one foreigner.

**No we don’t. When did Fox ever once report on which politicians have been influenced by which philosophers and scientists? **

Why do you choose to make yourself look ridiculous with these remarks?

It was you who made the ridiculous claim that “we elect them hoping they will be influenced by good philosophers and scientists rather than bad ones”. If anyone did care about that, then candidates would be asked, people would want to know. But the question never gets asked in any election, because you made it up in denial of the facts.

Why do you choose to make yourself look ridiculous with these remarks?

 

[inocente]

There is no point in attempting to have any further discussions with you because you do not understand that your anti-philosophical statements are philosophical - in addition to constantly ignoring the questions and statements in the other person’s posts.

Interesting, coming from the master of evasion. Your post #443 came over as an attempt to belittle and dismiss rather than engage. If I was wrong then make your point, otherwise I’m happy to stop there.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Don’t be silly, you even quoted me. I said it wasn’t philosophers or scientists who paid for and deployed the Bomb. How does that letter pay for and deploy the Bomb?

The cost of the Manhatten Project in today’s money was $24.1 billion. You claim one little Jewish scientist paid that $24.1 billion? Einstein wasn’t even an American citizen when he signed that letter (which he didn’t even write). You claim one little German got 130,000 Americans to work on the project? You claim he talked the USAF into bombing Japan?

It is interesting how, in the passage above, you are confronting Charlemagne for twisting your words “paid for” and “deployed” into something more than you intended. Okay, so your point is that scientists didn’t actually pay for or deploy the bomb(s), which Charlemagne never claimed.

However, you go on to do your own word play by stealthily sneaking in the word “initiated” as the action of Roosevelt. Beyond paying for and deploying, Roosevelt, you claim, “initiated” the project, as if it was his scientific brilliance that was employed to actually carry out the project.

It was an American president who initiated the project,

You castigate others for precisely what you do and feel you can get away with just because you can identify and point out what you perceive as that fault in others (which in fact they never committed.).

Furthermore, you not only formally commit the same alleged error, but then go on to vilify others by characterizing them as “wicked history deniers” and “ridiculous” for attempting to blame innocent parties (you included) in the process.

Not only are you sly, deceitful and hypocritical in your remarks, but you also play to the role of innocent victim in order to muster sympathy.

American citizens who paid for the Bomb, American citizens who built the Bomb, an American president who decided to use the Bomb, and American citizens who dropped the Bomb. Don’t come your wicked history denial with me. Take responsibility for your nation’s actions and stop trying to blame it on one foreigner.

It was you who made the ridiculous claim that “we elect them hoping they will be influenced by good philosophers and scientists rather than bad ones”. If anyone did care about that, then candidates would be asked, people would want to know. But the question never gets asked in any election, because you made it up in denial of the facts.

Why do you choose to make yourself look ridiculous with these remarks?

Let’s close on this “ridiculous” charge, shall we?

It was you who claimed Einstein didn’t actually write the letter, which means, I take it, that he didn’t “initiate” its writing. According to historians, it was probably Szilard who drafted it.

Bringing up this point is an example of your “doublespeak.” You are claiming Einstein didn’t “initiate” the letter - and therefore was not fully responsible for its content - because the ideas expressed in it came from someone else. This is inconsistent with your treatment of the Einstein and Roosevelt issue because, in the same sense, since Roosevelt did not conceive of the ideas for the atomic bomb, he therefore, like Einstein, should be excused from bearing the full brunt of responsibility for its deployment. Like Einstein, he did not actually “write” the theory that led to the deployment of the bomb. If you want to be consistent, since it was Szilard who penned the letter, he should bear responsibility for its content, then since it was Einstein who penned the scientific manifesto that led to the development of the bomb he should bear responsibility for it, as well. Roosevelt, like Einstein, merely “signed off” on the theory that led to the dire consequences. If you want to exonerate Einstein as a mere “signer,” then at least be consistent and exonerate Roosevelt, likewise, as a “mere signer.”

As we have seen from your posting history, consistency is not a ruling principle in the philosophy of Innocente, so the point above may be devoid of relevance in terms of how you conduct what you call “thought processes.”

Of course, I expect no reply from you and am quite unperturbed about the fact that none will be forthcoming.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting, coming from the master of evasion.

                             Hypothesis:  inocente's hypothesis is just dressed-up speculation.Your argument is not scientific but philosophical and therefore - according to you - dressed-up speculation.

Method: Count the number of philosophers and the number of their differing conclusions.
Results: The number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them.

If that is true the number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them - including inocente’s conclusion.
Your conclusion is not scientific but philosophical and therefore - according to you - in the same category as all other philosophical conclusions.

Discussion: Philosophers draw wildly different conclusions on every topic under the sun. Since truth cannot contradict truth, most if not all of those conclusions must be false.

Including inocente’s conclusion (unless he is infallible).Your conclusion is not scientific but philosophical and therefore - according to you - in the same category as all other philosophical conclusions. Why should it belong to the very small minority of true conclusions (if there are any)?

As said many times, science isn’t about proof, nor can God be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, although for example that’s exactly what intelligent design fans attempt.

If science proves nothing it is useless…If science proves nothing it is based on faith which - according to you - is guessing and therefore useless.** Is your faith based on guesswork?**

If science cannot lead to certainty it must require faith - which you equate with guessing.

As said many times, science isn’t about proof. But we know that

knowledge comes from experience, while no one can prove there is such a thing as knowledge a priori, so we go with what we know.

What is your interpretation of “experience”? The evidence from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?
No response to a straightforward question. If you cannot explain what you mean by “experience” any attempt at further discussion is obviously pointless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[inocente]

It is interesting how, in the passage above, you are confronting Charlemagne for twisting your words “paid for” and “deployed” into something more than you intended. Okay, so your point is that scientists didn’t actually pay for or deploy the bomb(s), which Charlemagne never claimed.

I know exactly what is being denied because it has been denied before on this thread only a month ago by the same poster, who in support of his denial linked a white supremacist, anti-Semitic, holocaust denial hate site - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10847458&postcount=168

You were on this thread at the time, you posted less than 90 minutes after I did so it’s disingenuous to now act as if this is all new to you.

Your derogatory, baiting remarks (“sly, deceitful and hypocritical”) are prohibited, just more to add to the appalling behavior you have shown on this thread. I’ve told you more than once I’m not interested in your views of me or your little witch hunt, post on-topic and stop stalking me.

 

[Gricken]

It is interesting how, in the passage above, you are confronting Charlemagne for twisting your words “paid for” and “deployed” into something more than you intended. Okay, so your point is that scientists didn’t actually pay for or deploy the bomb(s), which Charlemagne never claimed.

However, you go on to do your own word play by stealthily sneaking in the word “initiated” as the action of Roosevelt. Beyond paying for and deploying, Roosevelt, you claim, “initiated” the project, as if it was his scientific brilliance that was employed to actually carry out the project.

You castigate others for precisely what you do and feel you can get away with just because you can identify and point out what you perceive as that fault in others (which in fact they never committed.).

Furthermore, you not only formally commit the same alleged error, but then go on to vilify others by characterizing them as “wicked history deniers” and “ridiculous” for attempting to blame innocent parties (you included) in the process.

Not only are you sly, deceitful and hypocritical in your remarks, but you also play to the role of innocent victim in order to muster sympathy.

Let’s close on this “ridiculous” charge, shall we?

It was you who claimed Einstein didn’t actually write the letter, which means, I take it, that he didn’t “initiate” its writing. According to historians, it was probably Szilard who drafted it.

Bringing up this point is an example of your “doublespeak.” You are claiming Einstein didn’t “initiate” the letter - and therefore was not fully responsible for its content - because the ideas expressed in it came from someone else. This is inconsistent with your treatment of the Einstein and Roosevelt issue because, in the same sense, since Roosevelt did not conceive of the ideas for the atomic bomb, he therefore, like Einstein, should be excused from bearing the full brunt of responsibility for its deployment. Like Einstein, he did not actually “write” the theory that led to the deployment of the bomb. If you want to be consistent, since it was Szilard who penned the letter, he should bear responsibility for its content, then since it was Einstein who penned the scientific manifesto that led to the development of the bomb he should bear responsibility for it, as well. Roosevelt, like Einstein, merely “signed off” on the theory that led to the dire consequences. If you want to exonerate Einstein as a mere “signer,” then at least be consistent and exonerate Roosevelt, likewise, as a “mere signer.”

As we have seen from your posting history, consistency is not a ruling principle in the philosophy of Innocente, so the point above may be devoid of relevance in terms of how you conduct what you call “thought processes.”

Of course, I expect no reply from you and am quite unperturbed about the fact that none will be forthcoming.

 

[inocente]

It is interesting how, in the passage above, you are confronting Charlemagne for twisting your words “paid for” and “deployed” into something more than you intended. Okay, so your point is that scientists didn’t actually pay for or deploy the bomb(s), which Charlemagne never claimed.

I know exactly what is being denied because it has been denied before on this thread only a month ago by the same poster, who in support of his denial linked a white supremacist, anti-Semitic, holocaust denial hate site - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10847458&postcount=168

You were on this thread at the time, you posted less than 90 minutes after I did so it’s disingenuous to now act as if this is all new to you.

Your derogatory, baiting remarks (“sly, deceitful and hypocritical”) are prohibited, just more to add to the appalling behavior you have shown on this thread. I’ve told you more than once I’m not interested in your views of me or your little witch hunt, post on-topic and stop stalking me.

 

[inocente]

So have you’ve just joined this thread to support history denial or just to support the baiting and witch hunt?

 

[Gricken]

So have you’ve just joined this thread to support history denial or join a witch hunt?

Actually I’ve made a few posts before this. I suppose you just haven’t noticed. I suppose you could say I joined to defend against philosophy denial.

 

[inocente]

Actually I’ve made a few posts before this. I suppose you just haven’t noticed. I suppose you could say I joined to defend against philosophy denial.

So to join the witch hunt then.

 

[Gricken]

So to join the witch hunt then.

Do you have something meaningful to say to me? Or are you just going to make more sarcastic and insulting remarks? If it’s the latter then please don’t bother. It isn’t achieving anything

 

[inocente]

Do you have something meaningful to say to me? Or are you just going to make more sarcastic and insulting remarks? If it’s the latter then please don’t bother. It isn’t achieving anything

Sorry, I’m angry and taking out on the wrong guy.

 

[Gricken]

Sorry, I’m angry and taking out on the wrong guy.

No harm done friend That’s usually a good time to take a breather and step away for a little bit. I know from experience