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

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**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.**

You apparently are denying that Einstein write those letters to FDR urging him to produce the bomb.

To say that is to dismiss any role that science played in getting politicians to build the bomb.

Your logic is entirely without merit and makes you sound ridiculous. The real pity is that you can’t even see how ridiculous you sound.

O.K., you are free to deny the existence Einstein’s four letters to FDR and the influence of scientists in promoting the bomb.

For the record I am free to ignore all future posts of yours lest ridicule be piled upon ridicule.

 

[inocente]

inocente

**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.**

You apparently are denying that Einstein write those letters to FDR urging him to produce the bomb.

To say that is to dismiss any role that science played in getting politicians to build the bomb.

Your logic is entirely without merit and makes you sound ridiculous. The real pity is that you can’t even see how ridiculous you sound.

O.K., you are free to deny the existence Einstein’s four letters to FDR and the influence of scientists in promoting the bomb.

For the record I am free to ignore all future posts of yours lest ridicule be piled upon ridicule.

This is just ad hominem and fact denial. I’m not the one who links to anti-Semitic holocaust denial sites here on CAF. I’m not the one making gutless attempts to blame America’s actions on a couple of bits of paper from a foreigner. Here’s my post again from a month back to refresh your memory.

The site you linked in support of your attempt to rewrite history is a white supremacist, anti-Semitic, holocaust denial hate site.

Einstein wasn’t even an American citizen at the time of the letter, which he signed but didn’t even write. It was an American president who ordered the development of the Bomb. It cost 26 billion American dollars in 2013 money and employed more than 130,000 Americans. It was the American air force which dropped the bomb. America remains the only country ever to use a nuclear device in anger.

Take responsibility for your country’s actions and stop trying to palm it off on a solitary foreign scientist.

 

[inocente]

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

Wise words.

 

[inocente]

A false assertion which breaches the forum conduct rules.

Just think of how you started making disparaging remarks to me about Luther out of the blue on this thread (why btw - baiting?) then how you switched to doing it on another thread and still haven’t answered my question there.

Hypothesis: Philosophy is just 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.

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.
tonyrey;10972346:

Your argument is not scientific but philosophical and therefore - according to you - dressed-up speculation.

No, as you can see it was scientific, based on evidence.

*Your conclusion is not scientific but philosophical and therefore - according to you - in the same category as all other philosophical conclusions. *

No, as you can see it was scientific, based on evidence.

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)?

No, as you can see it was scientific, based on evidence.

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

This is a somewhat surprising misunderstanding of the entire basis of science. I linked this earlier, have a read, it’s only 500 words or so: psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

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

No I didn’t, I said the exact opposite “faith isn’t about guessing” - post #436

No response to a straightforward question. If you cannot explain what you mean by “experience” any attempt at further discussion is obviously pointless.

It wasn’t straight forward the way you asked it - “What is your interpretation of “experience”? The evidence from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?” - you were talking of interpretation in the first sentence and evidence in the second.

Empirical evidence is knowledge gained from observation. Experience is knowledge gained from seeing, feeling and doing things. In neither case does the knowledge exist a priori.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

This is precisely the problem I have with the way you carry on business. The article in question may have been contained on what many would consider a dubious site, but instead of engaging the points of the article, which itself does not come across as anti-Semitic, you chose to ignore the points in contention and instead engage in an ad hominem as a way of not having to rebut the points made. That, to me is a questionable tactic, in particular on a philosophy forum where fallacies are to be avoided and not employed as a basic strategy.

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.

My position is that your tactic is the more disingenuous one since you were the one who attempted to evade a point made by Charlemagne by attacking his source rather than dealing with the actual point made.

This is certainly not “news” to me because you seem to be quite willing to use questionable arguments but act as if you are personally horrified and become offensive when someone else wanders close to committing a fallacy.

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.

This is you playing the victim. Just answer the point of Einstein’s responsibility for the development of atomic weapons. He deeply regretted it, which means he personally regarded and accepted his role as contributory. Was he, Einstein himself, also being anti-Semitic?

 

[SoylentGreen]

Lot’s of bad sentiments above.

Getting back to the question that began the thread.

My own very short answer to this question is that science is the only source of knowledge, but only for those who reject every other path other than science. Anyone who believes atheism to be true, adopts Science (with the capital) as their substitute God; and why? Because it has the respect of the larger segment of society. With all the famed scientific names to boot, and which are seen as being on the top of the pyramid where intelligence is concerned. Science thus appeals to the Ego. Everyone, mostly, wants to be with the In-Crowd, the Leading Intellects, because this is taken as a measure of one’s worth and belonging–to the right Group. The same mindset can sometimes be seen in religions, and philosophical leanings, psychology (where Freud is still the God of psychologists) and the social sciences; hell, even English literature has crowned Shakespeare as the Bard (interpret this: God of English plays and poems). It’s human nature to want to raise the elite on a pedestal, it shows that one has a measure of the understanding attributed to these Gods.

Science is the God of those who have this need and desire to raise whatever they see as their accepted path in life, to the stature of a Be-All and End-All. And unfortunately, while scientists themselves well understand their limitations, too many people harbor this perspective that Science has the answer for everything, and if not, he potential to achieve the answers.

Science has also brought humanity to the brink of its total possible self-annihilation.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Tyrants, and complete imbeciles (like the one now governing North Korea).

It’s high time we all got down on our knees every day a few times and pray for Christ’s speedy return. His planet is weeping!

 

[tonyrey]

Just think of how you started making disparaging remarks to me about Luther out of the blue on this thread (why btw - baiting?) then how you switched to doing it on another thread and still haven’t answered my question there.

The remarks were not about you or Luther but about your attack on philosophy which is in the tradition of his attack on reason - which makes one wonder why you participate at all on a philosophy forum.

I have answered your question but not in the unreasonable way you specify. Do you support all your assertions with chapter and verse?

No, as you can see it was scientific, based on evidence.

This is a somewhat surprising misunderstanding of the entire basis of science. I linked this earlier, have a read, it’s only 500 words or so: psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Is this argument scientific:

*Hypothesis: Philosophy is just 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. *

?

Is it a valid conclusion?

No I didn’t, I said the exact opposite “faith isn’t about guessing” - post #436

Then what is faith is based on?

It wasn’t straight forward the way you asked it - “What is your interpretation of “experience”? The evidence from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?” - you were talking of interpretation in the first sentence and evidence in the second.

Empirical evidence is knowledge gained from observation. Experience is knowledge gained from seeing, feeling and doing things. In neither case does the knowledge exist a priori.

Do you rule out evidence and experience gained from observation of thoughts, choices and decisions? Is that evidence and experience scientific?

 

[inocente]

This is precisely the problem I have with the way you carry on business. The article in question may have been contained on what many would consider a dubious site, but instead of engaging the points of the article, which itself does not come across as anti-Semitic, you chose to ignore the points in contention and instead engage in an ad hominem as a way of not having to rebut the points made. That, to me is a questionable tactic, in particular on a philosophy forum where fallacies are to be avoided and not employed as a basic strategy.

My position is that your tactic is the more disingenuous one since you were the one who attempted to evade a point made by Charlemagne by attacking his source rather than dealing with the actual point made.

This is certainly not “news” to me because you seem to be quite willing to use questionable arguments but act as if you are personally horrified and become offensive when someone else wanders close to committing a fallacy.

This is you playing the victim. Just answer the point of Einstein’s responsibility for the development of atomic weapons. He deeply regretted it, which means he personally regarded and accepted his role as contributory. Was he, Einstein himself, also being anti-Semitic?

That site is not merely dubious, it is the most viciously evil hate site, full of Nazi loving, Jew and black hating, Holocaust denying propaganda.

We are being asked to believe the ridiculous claim that by sending a few letters to Roosevelt, Einstein hypnotized America into dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The truth is totally different. The 1939 letter was written mainly by Leó Szilárd with Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner. The letter suggested that a large amount of uranium could be used to build a weapon of mass destruction, however at that time the writers believed it would weigh tons and have to be delivered by boat (they say so in the letter).

The letter warned that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium and could be developing such a weapon. As a result Roosevelt created a security committee on uranium. Then in 1940 two researchers in England calculated that only a few kilos, not tons, of uranium would be needed, and this caused the UK and US governments to give more priority to developing the weapon, which in 1941 led Roosevelt to approve the Manhattan project.

It was largely the British data in 1941, not the Einstein–Szilárd letter in 1939, which led to the development of the Bomb.

It took a number of brilliant scientists to carry out the order to develop the Bomb. Einstein wasn’t one of them - even had he wanted to work on the project, the FBI didn’t give him security clearance due to his pacifist views.

All this information is freely available, there is no excuse for this inane campaign to blame Einstein. Fabricating myths in denial of evidence is called negationism, an evil philosophy. By attempting to blame others for your country’s actions, you diminish not just the victims but your own veterans. War is hell and you cannot sanitize it with fairy tales.

splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/institute-for-historical-reviewhttp://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/investigate.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Uranium_Committee
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch%E2%80%93Peierls_memorandum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/10/04_krieger_nuc_weapons.php

 

[inocente]

The remarks were not about you or Luther but about your attack on philosophy which is in the tradition of his attack on reason - which makes one wonder why you participate at all on a philosophy forum.

I have answered your question but not in the unreasonable way you specify. Do you support all your assertions with chapter and verse?

I’m a fan of science, and science requires reason, it’s surprising you would think otherwise.

I’ll not answer your question here as it’s a different thread.

I’m attacking what has come to be thought of as philosophy, the Descartes school of knowledge a priori, and am supporting Newton’s side in that debate, what has become known as science, the school of knowledge a posteriori. Earlier I linked various articles on that, including Newton’s General Scholium.

Is this argument scientific:
?
Is it a valid conclusion?

It’s not an argument, it is a hypothesis supported by observation.

Then what is faith is based on?

Trust.

Do you rule out evidence and experience gained from observation of thoughts, choices and decisions? Is that evidence and experience scientific?

Yes if observation of the thoughts, choices and decisions of others, after all that is a large part of the social sciences. When applied to our self it’s called introspection and is problematic, for instance the very act of observing our own thoughts will change them.

 

[inocente]

splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/institute-for-historical-reviewhttp://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html

That link won’t work, two urls somehow got merged, the correct links are:

splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/institute-for-historical-review
dannen.com/ae-fdr.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes if observation of the thoughts, choices and decisions of others, after all that is a large part of the social sciences. When applied to our self it’s called introspection and is problematic, for instance the very act of observing our own thoughts will change them.

Introspection presumes an a priori perspective in order to make sense of new experience. In order to form any kind of position from which to assess the validity or meaning of new experience a prior perspective must exist. This is true even where introspection or the “act of observing our own thoughts” is occurring; the observer must pre-exist and superintend the “act of observing.” There is no escaping a priori “knowing” of some form in order to make sense of any experience.

As for the social sciences, there is always observer bias at play in any observation. That is applied a priori. The best we can do is look for truth and have that as our a priori perspective. If truth is possible, then truth must be what can be applied to our understanding of any observed phenomena. We could not recognize the truth unless it exists transcendent to our own perspective but accessible to us. Truth must be a priori or it is merely our own invention.

 

[tonyrey]

*The remarks were not about you or Luther but about your attack on philosophy which is in the tradition of his attack on reason - which makes one wonder why you participate at all on a philosophy forum.
*

I’m not the one who rejects the value of philosophy. particularly metaphysics.

I have answered your question but not in the unreasonable way you specify. Do you support all your assertions with chapter and verse?

I’ll not answer your question here as it’s a different thread.

If you ask for chapter and verse you need to explain why it is always necessary on this thread.

I’m attacking what has come to be thought of as philosophy, the Descartes school of knowledge a priori, and am supporting Newton’s side in that debate, what has become known as science, the school of knowledge a posteriori. Earlier I linked various articles on that, including Newton’s General Scholium.

On what principles is a posteriori knowledge based?

Is this argument scientific? Is it a valid conclusion?

It’s not an argument, it is a hypothesis supported by observation.

Is it a scientific hypothesis? Is the conclusion conclusive?

Then what is faith is based on?

Trust.

Are there any reasons for having trust? Or is it blind trust?

Do you rule out evidence and experience gained from observation of thoughts, choices and decisions? Is that evidence and experience scientific?

Yes if observation of the thoughts, choices and decisions of others, after all that is a large part of the social sciences. When applied to our self it’s called introspection and is problematic, for instance the very act of observing our own thoughts will change them.

Then you regard your own thoughts, choices and decisions as untrustworthy?

 

[inocente]

Introspection presumes an a priori perspective in order to make sense of new experience. In order to form any kind of position from which to assess the validity or meaning of new experience a prior perspective must exist. This is true even where introspection or the “act of observing our own thoughts” is occurring; the observer must pre-exist and superintend the “act of observing.” There is no escaping a priori “knowing” of some form in order to make sense of any experience.

As for the social sciences, there is always observer bias at play in any observation. That is applied a priori. The best we can do is look for truth and have that as our a priori perspective. If truth is possible, then truth must be what can be applied to our understanding of any observed phenomena. We could not recognize the truth unless it exists transcendent to our own perspective but accessible to us. Truth must be a priori or it is merely our own invention.

After ranting at me over the silly accusations about Einstein, once you realize the truth you just move on without a word as if you hadn’t falsely accused me and called me all kinds of names.

Your behavior is too volatile and erratic for me. You’re only the second person ever to make it to my ignore list. Bye bye.

 

[inocente]

I’m not the one who rejects the value of philosophy. particularly metaphysics.

I gathered that.

If you ask for chapter and verse you need to explain why it is always necessary on this thread.

That’s on another thread, the stickies say don’t jump threads so let’s not.

On what principles is a posteriori knowledge based?

As already said, we know that knowledge can be gained from the senses.

Is it a scientific hypothesis? Is the conclusion conclusive?

Yes. 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. Or do you think every one of the following must be true? Substance dualism, property dualism, predicate dualism, occasionalism, behaviorism, functionalism, emergentism, idealism, neutral monism, supervenience physcialism, reductive physicalism, epiphenomenalism, …

Are there any reasons for having trust? Or is it blind trust?

I think gaining trust is largely about integrity and constancy, about lack of capriciousness or deviousness.

Then you regard your own thoughts, choices and decisions as untrustworthy?

Anyone who never questions the trustworthiness of their thoughts is likely to be a danger to themselves and others and could be committed to hospital for treatment.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not the one who rejects the value of philosophy. particularly metaphysics.

Then you have no reason to complain I am disparaging you rather than philosophy - which you continue to do in the post I am answering.

If you ask for chapter and verse you need to explain why it is always necessary on this thread.

That’s on another thread, the stickies say don’t jump threads so let’s not.

Then which question on this thread do you suppose I have failed to answer?

On what principles is a posteriori knowledge based?

As already said, we know that knowledge can be gained from the senses.

How do you know **all **knowledge can be gained from the senses?

Is it a scientific hypothesis? Is the conclusion conclusive?

Yes. 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. Or do you think every one of the following must be true? Substance dualism, property dualism, predicate dualism, occasionalism, behaviorism, functionalism, emergentism, idealism, neutral monism, supervenience physcialism, reductive physicalism, epiphenomenalism, …

A hypothesis based on a comparison of philosophies is not scientific but logical. Is logic derived from science?

Moreover the conclusion “most if not all of those conclusions must be false” does not rule out the truth of at least one philosophy. Do you have a philosophy? If so what is it?

I think gaining trust is largely about integrity and constancy, about lack of capriciousness and deviousness.

How do you establish whether a person or teaching has integrity and constancy?

Anyone who never questions the trustworthiness of their thoughts is likely to be a danger to themselves and others and could be committed to mental hospital.

To what extent do you (dis)trust the thoughts you are expressing on this thread?

 

[inocente]

Then you have no reason to complain I am disparaging you rather than philosophy - which you continue to do in the post I am answering.

Your post #484: “The remarks were not about you or Luther”.

And yet:

Your post #210 (to everyone): “Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread”
Your post #279: (to me) “Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread”
Your post #285 (to me): “Luther’s irrational subjectivism still exists on this Philosophy forum with its adulation of science on the one hand and its rejection of philosophy on the other!”
Your post #288 (to me): "Further evidence that Luther’s irrational subjectivism exists on this Philosophy forum… "

That’s the great thing about evidence, it is constant.

Shall we fight this to the death or could we move on now?

Then which question on this thread do you suppose I have failed to answer?

Que? In post #476 I said you hadn’t answered a question on another thread.

*How do you know **all ***knowledge can be gained from the senses?

I don’t. But since we are certain that the senses are a source of knowledge, and we are not certain of any other source, it is reasonable to proceed on the principle that all knowledge is a posteriori until shown otherwise.

A hypothesis based on a comparison of philosophies is not scientific but logical. Is logic derived from science?

It’s based on empirical evidence and so is very much scientific.

Moreover the conclusion “most if not all of those conclusions must be false” does not rule out the truth of at least one philosophy. Do you have a philosophy? If so what is it?

By that strange argument, the optimum is an infinite number of disagreeing philosophies.

Let’s call that scattergunism.

A philosopher will only produce a new -ism if she thinks all existing -isms are false, therefore all philosophers believe all except their own -ism is false (and some even come to view their own -ism as false). So my philosophy, that all philosophies are a waste of oxygen, has as much chance of being correct as any other, and has the merit of calling a spade a spade. Those who call me unphilosophical thus show themselves unphilosophical.

How do you establish whether a person or teaching has integrity and constancy?

Same today as yesterday.

To what extent do you (dis)trust the thoughts you are expressing on this thread?

On this subject, a lot less now than when we started - the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the pudding has done better than I expected.

 

[Peter_Plato]

After ranting at me over the silly accusations about Einstein, once you realize the truth you just move on without a word as if you hadn’t falsely accused me and called me all kinds of names.

Realize what truth? It is very clear that you take great license with interpreting or reading into the words of others. You pretend to be offended and then use this pretense and subsequent emotional outbursts to derail points you know you cannot answer and then claim some kind of victory when your interlocutor backs off so as not to cause you any further unnecessary emotional distress.

This seems to be either a game you play or deliberate strategy you employ when the mysterious outer limits of your mental capacity are approached.

Your behavior is too volatile and erratic for me. You’re only the second person ever to make it to my ignore list. Bye bye.

Speaking of volatile and erratic: fleeing from answering others when they call you out for the contentious points you make is erratic, or, at least, inconsistent. If you have worked out the truth of your POV then be willing to take up with those who disagree with you.

You made no attempt to “ignore” anyone when you penned what you thought were irrefutable points and even sarcastically dumped on others when you were confident in your assertions. Why don’t you ignore those you feel are beneath your intellectual level and then go on to humiliate with your sarcasm?

For the record, I never use the ignore button. I don’t see a valid use for it. If the person makes considered points, no matter what kind of toad they are as an individual, the points need to be read and considered.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A philosopher will only produce a new -ism if she thinks all existing -isms are false, therefore all philosophers believe all except their own -ism is false (and some even come to view their own -ism as false). So my philosophy, that all philosophies are a waste of oxygen, has as much chance of being correct as any other, and has the merit of calling a spade a spade. Those who call me unphilosophical thus show themselves unphilosophical.

If there is merit in calling a spade a spade, then the above has to rank as the most banal and self-serving bit of tripe - or tripe pudding - I have ever read in my life.

*Note: Due to my hasty placement on Innocente’s Ignore list (only the second person in the world to be so honored) I will address this post to Innocente in the third person to play along with the impression that he will be ignoring it.
*
What does this “argument” amount to?

Based on the a priori premise - Innocente denies that "a priori” is even a possibility, yet bases his argument on the truth of this premise - that all philosophies are false, Innocente’s claim is that others should adopt his philosophy (which is defined only by the statement that all philosophies are false) because it has just as much chance of being correct as any other philosophy (which are all, in any case, by presumption, false.)

A syllogism to dispose of this “apparent” philosophy:

P1 All philosophies are false.
P2 Innocente’s proposal is a philosophy.
Therefore, Innocente’s proposal is false.

Obviously, if all philosophies are false (P1), then Innocente’s philosophy, as a philosophy, has an equal chance of being true as any other. That is, no chance at all. It must be, by definition, as a philosophy, false.

The problem is that, logically speaking, Innocente’s philosophy has no chance of being true because Innocente premises its potential for trueness on the premise that all philosophies are false, which logically entails that his philosophy must also be false.

This is a self-referential and self-defeating proposition, yet Innocente, himself, brashly ventured into the realm of audacity by labeling his proposal to be a “philosophy.”

For the record, it has been pointed out to Innocente by at least three other posters on this thread, that his proposal is self-defeating yet he keeps rehashing it using different words in order to reincarnate it back into existence. I recall, however, that reincarnation, in whatever form, is not a Baptist belief.

This “philosophy” of Innocente’s is a dead entity. He should just bury it and save himself the grief of dragging it up over and over again out of what should have been its grave eon’s ago.

I look forward to no reply from Innocente, but to be consistent with his inconsistency, he will, no doubt, post a reply.

 

[tonyrey]

Your post #484: “The remarks were not about you or Luther”.

And yet:

Your post #210 (to everyone): “Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread”
Your post #279: (to me) “Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread”
Your post #285 (to me): “Luther’s irrational subjectivism still exists on this Philosophy forum with its adulation of science on the one hand and its rejection of philosophy on the other!”
Your post #288 (to me): "Further evidence that Luther’s irrational subjectivism exists on this Philosophy forum… "

That’s the great thing about evidence, it is constant.

Shall we fight this to the death or could we move on now?

Que? In post #476 I said you hadn’t answered a question on another thread.

I don’t. But since we are certain that the senses are a source of knowledge, and we are not certain of any other source, it is reasonable to proceed on the principle that all knowledge is a posteriori until shown otherwise.

It’s based on empirical evidence and so is very much scientific.

By that strange argument, the optimum is an infinite number of disagreeing philosophies.

Let’s call that scattergunism.

A philosopher will only produce a new -ism if she thinks all existing -isms are false, therefore all philosophers believe all except their own -ism is false (and some even come to view their own -ism as false). So my philosophy, that all philosophies are a waste of oxygen, has as much chance of being correct as any other, and has the merit of calling a spade a spade. Those who call me unphilosophical thus show themselves unphilosophical.

Same today as yesterday.

On this subject, a lot less now than when we started - the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the pudding has done better than I expected.

Thank you for the conclusive demonstration of the absurd lengths to which some will go to demonstrate that science is the only source of knowledge.

Schopenhauer sometimes hit the nail on the head:

“In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.”

 

[inocente]

Thank you for the conclusive demonstration of the absurd lengths to which some will go to demonstrate that science is the only source of knowledge.

Schopenhauer sometimes hit the nail on the head:

“In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.”

Thank you for the conclusive demonstration that you have no response except ad hominem.

You could simply have called me a heretic, for this thread has proved that terror at heterodox ideas continues unabated.

*At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine’s residence and ordered,

“to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it… to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.” -The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo,
1616. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair*

Philosophy is logical argument, not personal attacks. By the lights of some posters, freedom of thought is dead and philosophy is anathema. Oh dear.