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

[tonyrey]

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.

I’m delighted you falsely accuse me of an hominem because you immediately proceed to resort to one! “terror at heterodox ideas” is one of the most blatant examples one could find…

Definition:

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

• Urban Dictionary

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

You need to examine your posts objectively.

1. Who has been disparaging philosophy on this thread?
2. Who has reduced logic to science?

 

[inocente]

I’m delighted you falsely accuse me of an hominem because you immediately proceed to resort to one! “terror at heterodox ideas” is one of the most blatant examples one could find…

You’ve never got the hang of ad hominem.

You chose to answer my post #488 with the ad hominem “the absurd lengths to which some will go to”. That’s not a logical argument, it’s just trying to write me off as foolish, preposterous, ludicrous.

My response was alluding to the rich heritage down through the ages of people attempting to suppress ideas that frighten their horses. If suppression is philosophy then philosophy is dead.

*Definition:

• Urban Dictionary*

Really? You had to pass all the authoritative definitions and go to urban dictionary to find a suitably insulting quote? That’s worst than citing blogs as sources of knowledge. The guy who posted that definition, Pcc88, only ever posted that one. In future why not log on to urban dictionary, write your own definition, then quote it here!

You need to examine your posts objectively.

1. Who has been disparaging philosophy on this thread?

1. Who has reduced logic to science?

Philosophy is not an idol, with worshipers to get offended.

Objectively, if you can get past your horror that in a free world some find philosophy neither use nor ornament, and if you’ve ever presented an argument or evidence for knowledge a priori, please remind me.

 

[grannymh]

Philosophy is not an idol, with worshipers to get offended.

.

Hi Inocente,

Speaking of philosophy and science, I heard that there are university courses on “Philosophy of Science”. Following some links, with the help of Professor Google, I verified the truth of that type of intellectual endeavor. At the University of California, Irvine, Department of Philosophy, Jeffrey A. Barrett, published a paper
“Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics”
Copyright 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association. Philosophically speaking, do you have any comments on an empirically incoherent [scientific] theory? You can forget that question–this often cranky (feminine of snarky) granny couldn’t resist asking.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve never got the hang of ad hominem.

You chose to answer my post #488 with the ad hominem “the absurd lengths to which some will go to”. That’s not a logical argument, it’s just trying to write me off as foolish, preposterous, ludicrous.

My response was alluding to the rich heritage down through the ages of people attempting to suppress ideas that frighten their horses. If suppression is philosophy then philosophy is dead.

Really? You had to pass all the authoritative definitions and go to urban dictionary to find a suitably insulting quote? That’s worst than citing blogs as sources of knowledge. The guy who posted that definition, Pcc88, only ever posted that one. In future why not log on to urban dictionary, write your own definition, then quote it here!

Philosophy is not an idol, with worshipers to get offended.

Objectively, if you can get past your horror that in a free world some find philosophy neither use nor ornament, and if you’ve ever presented an argument or evidence for knowledge a priori, please remind me.

The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verifiability principle is itself not verifiable by sense experience, i.e. by empirical knowledge. In other words a posteriori knowledge **presupposes **a priori knowledge and cannot justify itself. If you can overcome that hurdle materialists of every variety will be highly delighted that you have destroyed metaphysics for once and for all…

Science **presupposes **logic - which is not surprising if one is aware that Aristotle formulated the laws of thought.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi Inocente,

Speaking of philosophy and science, I heard that there are university courses on “Philosophy of Science”. Following some links, with the help of Professor Google, I verified the truth of that type of intellectual endeavor. At the University of California, Irvine, Department of Philosophy, Jeffrey A. Barrett, published a paper
“Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics”
Copyright 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association. Philosophically speaking, do you have any comments on an empirically incoherent [scientific] theory? You can forget that question–this often cranky (feminine of snarky) granny couldn’t resist asking.

A pertinent question that should **not **be forgotten on a philosophy forum!

 

[inocente]

Hi Inocente,

Speaking of philosophy and science, I heard that there are university courses on “Philosophy of Science”. Following some links, with the help of Professor Google, I verified the truth of that type of intellectual endeavor. At the University of California, Irvine, Department of Philosophy, Jeffrey A. Barrett, published a paper
“Empirical Adequacy and the Availability of Reliable Records in Quantum Mechanics”
Copyright 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association. Philosophically speaking, do you have any comments on an empirically incoherent [scientific] theory? You can forget that question–this often cranky (feminine of snarky) granny couldn’t resist asking.

Hello granny, long time no see, good to hear your cranky tones again.

Barrett’s profile says his department of Logic and Philosophy of Science is in the School of Social Sciences.

I rest my case.

His paper is online here (pdf). It looks much the same as what a theoretical physicist might write, and I think most of the work on what’s called the measurement problem has been by physicists, although it has philosophical overtones as it’s about how quantum theory should be interpreted.

You may know of Schrodinger’s Cat, which puts the issue bluntly. Quantum theory says the world is made up of many overlapping states, but in classical physics and in our everyday experience we only ever see one outcome to any event. Why this should be so is on the face of it incoherent, which is generally what incoherence means in this context.

Two attempts at explanation which you may have heard of are the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Interpretation (which says reality involves a potentially infinite number of branching worlds each with its own granny).

Different postulates affect what can be used as evidence, and this is how I read Barrett’s paper, although I’m not a physicist so stand to be corrected on all the above.

 

[inocente]

The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verifiability principle is itself not verifiable by sense experience, i.e. by empirical knowledge. In other words a posteriori knowledge **presupposes **a priori knowledge and cannot justify itself. If you can overcome that hurdle materialists of every variety will be highly delighted that you have destroyed metaphysics for once and for all…

Science **presupposes **logic - which is not surprising if one is aware that Aristotle formulated the laws of thought.

This was raised earlier, and there is no need to presuppose anything.

We can take any element of logic and treat it as a hypothesis to be tested by empirical evidence. For example the truth table for a AND b can be determined by wiring two switches in series to a bulb and battery, the truth table for a OR b can be determined by wiring the switches in parallel and so on.

Off-hand I can think of no interesting presuppositions which are not subject to experiential testing - since there is only one world, knowledge must relate back to the world or it isn’t knowledge of anything other than a fictional world.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This was raised earlier, and there is no need to presuppose anything.

This was raised earlier and answered.

We can take any element of logic and treat it as a hypothesis to be tested by empirical evidence. For example the truth table for a AND b can be determined by wiring two switches in series to a bulb and battery, the truth table for a OR b can be determined by wiring the switches in parallel and so on.

This was answered and ignored by you. The fact that a priori truths can be instantiated in the world does not mean their truth value depends upon their being so evidenced. The truth for *a AND b * does not depend upon the fact that the logic can be wired into a circuit, the truth table is true independent of that demonstration and was accepted as true long before circuits existed.

This fact you conveniently ignore, like all other truths and individuals you “ignore” that are inconvenient to your cobbled “philosophy” that “all knowledge is experiential.” (Which, incidentally, you denied is a philosophy until you were pressed to admit it, then you conceded that, as a philosophy, the rather feeble and self-defeating logic you mustered to justify it was that it has an equal chance as all other philosophies of being true.)

Off-hand I can think of no interesting presuppositions which are not subject to experiential testing - since there is only one world, knowledge must relate back to the world or it isn’t knowledge of anything other than a fictional world.

There is at least one interesting presupposition which is not subject to experiential testing: God exists or God is Love.

You claim to be affiliated to a mainstream Christian religion (Baptist) and make truth claims concerning that religion that cannot be experientially tested, yet you expound on philosophical matters as if none of your “beliefs” are required to be true in any accepted sense.

 

[tonyrey]

The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verifiability principle is itself not verifiable by sense experience, i.e. by empirical knowledge. In other words a posteriori knowledge presupposes a priori knowledge and cannot justify itself. If you can overcome that hurdle materialists of every variety will be highly delighted that you have destroyed metaphysics for once and for all…

How do you justify the verifiability principle?

Do you start with a completely blank mind when formulating a hypothesis? With no rules whatsoever?

We can take any element of logic and treat it as a hypothesis to be tested by empirical evidence. For example the truth table for a AND b can be determined by wiring two switches in series to a bulb and battery, the truth table for a OR b can be determined by wiring the switches in parallel and so on.

On what principles is a truth table based? Are the laws of identity, identity and non-contradiction superfluous?

Off-hand I can think of no interesting presuppositions which are not subject to experiential testing - since there is only one world, knowledge must relate back to the world or it isn’t knowledge of anything other than a fictional world.

Do you have no knowledge of your mind?

Does the physical world constitute the whole of reality?

 

[inocente]

How do you justify the verifiability principle?

You don’t, it’s a philosophical doctrine which doesn’t work, basically because it requires positive proof that a statement is true.

Whereas a scientific hypothesis does not have to be proved correct, it must instead be open to being proved false.

Do you start with a completely blank mind when formulating a hypothesis? With no rules whatsoever?

You start with your experience. If you are cooking paella you taste it to decide whether to add salt or whatever.

On what principles is a truth table based? Are the laws of identity, identity and non-contradiction superfluous?

They can be tested. Remember that the burden is not to prove them true in absolute, only to show that they are not false in the limits of known observations. But tests show we must be careful of context, for example in the two-slit experiment and uncertainty principle it isn’t clear what we should think of as the thing which has identity.

Do you have no knowledge of your mind?

We learn.

Does the physical world constitute the whole of reality?

As far as we know. God made a physical creation. We have evidence for physical reality. We have no evidence that God made any alternate reality.

And before you ask, belief in God is definitely not a priori, it is a posteriori c.f. Romans 1:20.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you justify the verifiability principle?

How do you verify the truth of your statements?

Whereas a scientific hypothesis does not have to be proved correct, it must instead be open to being proved false.

Are all your statements scientific? If not how would you justify them?

Do you start with a completely blank mind when formulating a hypothesis? With no rules whatsoever?

You start with your experience. If you are cooking paella you taste it to decide whether to add salt or whatever.

Do you have rules for analysing your experience?

On what principles is a truth table based? Are the laws of identity, identity and non-contradiction superfluous?

They can be tested. Remember that the burden is not to prove them true in absolute, only to show that they are not false in the limits of known observations. But tests show we must be careful of context, for example in the two-slit experiment and uncertainty principle it isn’t clear what we should think of as the thing which has identity.

But you would agree persons and things are distinguishable as individuals?

Do you have no knowledge of your mind?

We learn.

Then we do have knowledge of our mind?

Does the physical world constitute the whole of reality?

As far as we know. God made a physical creation. We have evidence for physical reality. We have no evidence that God made any alternate reality.

Do you reject spiritual reality?

And before you ask, belief in God is definitely not a priori, it is a posteriori c.f. Romans 1:20.

Is it based on facts?

 

[inocente]

How do you verify the truth of your statements?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Are all your statements scientific? If not how would you justify them?

Not sure how, for instance, you’d make a scientific greeting.

Do you have rules for analysing your experience?

Don’t we all? “If it works don’t fix it”, etc.

But you would agree persons and things are distinguishable as individuals?

Other than the kinds of examples given.

Then we do have knowledge of our mind?

We have the experience of self-awareness.

Do you reject spiritual reality?

Please define spiritual.

Is it based on facts?

On interpretation of facts.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Science is limited to the study of the material world. We’re only able to study what we are allowed to study, nothing more. Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?

The natural world is the only one we can know. However imperfectly.
You seem upset that you are limited to study only several things. We have no idea why you are limited in your course selection, you do not elaborate. What classes do you feel are not available to you?
You wonder why science is given any credit for anything as you type this.
Last but not least, you wonder how you can fit God into all this.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you verify the truth of your statements?

Do you think the truth of all your statements can be verified scientifically? If not how else?

Are all your statements scientific? If not how would you justify them?

Not sure how, for instance, you’d make a scientific greeting.

Would you describe all your non-scientific statements as irrational and/or insignificant?

Do you have rules for analysing your experience?

Don’t we all? “If it works don’t fix it”, etc.

What are your rules for analysing your experience?

But you would agree persons and things are distinguishable as individuals?

Other than the kinds of examples given.

Then the logical principle of identity is valid for most purposes?

Then we do have knowledge of our mind?

We have the experience of self-awareness.

Is the experience of self-awareness more significant or less significant than scientific knowledge?

Do you reject spiritual reality?

Please define spiritual.

Real, intangible and beyond the scope of science, i.e. supernatural. “God is Spirit”.

Is it based on facts?

On interpretation of facts.

Which facts?

 

[inocente]

Do you think the truth of all your statements can be verified scientifically? If not how else?

As already stated, verification is a discredited philosophical doctrine.

Would you describe all your non-scientific statements as irrational and/or insignificant?

We appear to have switched out of conversation mode into your Staccato Interrogation Mode. In your previous two posts you asked 12 questions with no other narrative. In this post you asked another 5 questions, along with a definition I asked for before I could answer a previous question of yours. So consider whether “this is no longer a discussion” is a scientific statement and you will have your answer.

What are your rules for analysing your experience?

Experience is recursive.

Then the logical principle of identity is valid for most purposes?

To the extent that it works.

Is the experience of self-awareness more significant or less significant than scientific knowledge?

Hit parades are based on subjective criteria.

Real, intangible and beyond the scope of science, i.e. supernatural. “God is Spirit”.

Your definition doesn’t work.

The Christian faith teaches that God is a real, concrete person, not some intangible essence or esoteric mist like “god-spray,” Pope Francis said. - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301739.htm

Which facts?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

 

[tonyrey]

Do you think the truth of all your statements can be verified scientifically? If not how else?

Empirical verification of everything is a discredited philosophical doctrine. How can your non-scientific statements be verified - or is it impossible to verify them?

Would you describe all your non-scientific statements as irrational and/or insignificant?

We appear to have switched out of conversation mode into your Staccato Interrogation Mode. In your previous two posts you asked 12 questions with no other narrative. In this post you asked another 5 questions, along with a definition I asked for before I could answer a previous question of yours. So consider whether “this is no longer a discussion” is a scientific statement and you will have your answer.

If you do not answer questions this is certainly no longer a discussion. It is the only way to find out your views on knowledge.

What are your rules for analysing your experience?

Experience is recursive.

That is not a rule for analysing experience.

Then the logical principle of identity is valid for most purposes?

To the extent that it works.

Then you agree that the laws of identity, identity and non-contradiction are basic principles of thought without which reasoning is impossible.

Is the experience of self-awareness more significant or less significant than scientific knowledge?

Hit parades are based on subjective criteria.

For rational purposes - such as legal proceedings - the experience of self-awareness is far more significant than hit parades.

Real, intangible and beyond the scope of science, i.e. supernatural. “God is Spirit”.

Your definition doesn’t work.

The Christian faith teaches that God is a real, concrete person, not some intangible essence or esoteric mist like “god-spray,” Pope Francis said. - catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/1301739.htm

Your quotation doesn’t work.

The Pope did not say God is not real, not intangible or not Spirit.

Which facts?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

Is this a scientific conclusion?

 

[inocente]

Empirical verification of everything is a discredited philosophical doctrine. How can your non-scientific statements be verified - or is it impossible to verify them?

That’s something like the eighteenth question in a row. Please verify the statement “interrogation is not conversation”.

If you do not answer questions this is certainly no longer a discussion. It is the only way to find out your views on knowledge.

Correct, interrogation isn’t discussion.

That is not a rule for analysing experience.

1. Learn from experience.
2. Experience is learning.
3. This is a recursive procedure.

Then you agree that the laws of identity, identity and non-contradiction are basic principles of thought without which reasoning is impossible.

No, we only went through this a few days back. The problem here appears to be that you’ve asked so many questions on different things that you’ve already forgotten the answers.

*For rational purposes - such as legal proceedings - the experience of self-awareness is far more significant than hit parades. *

No matter, asking me to rank self-awareness with scientific knowledge is hit parades.

*Your quotation doesn’t work.

The Pope did not* say God is not real, not intangible or not Spirit.

You defined God as “real, intangible”. The Pope said “God is a real, concrete person, not some intangible essence”. You say God is intangible, the Pope says He is not. You disagree with the Pope. That is the evidence. Either you or the Pope has the wrong idea about God, you can’t both be right.

Is this a scientific conclusion?

Again you’ve asked so many questions that already you forgot the answers. Paul talks of God being known (interpretation) from what has been made (a posteriori knowledge). God cannot be known a priori.

If you continue in your Staccato Interrogation Mode my next post will only contain my rank and serial number.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s something like the eighteenth question in a row. Please verify the statement “interrogation is not conversation”.

Correct, interrogation isn’t discussion.

1. Learn from experience.
2. Experience is learning.
3. This is a recursive procedure.

No, we only went through this a few days back. The problem here appears to be that you’ve asked so many questions on different things that you’ve already forgotten the answers.

No matter, asking me to rank self-awareness with scientific knowledge is hit parades.

You defined God as “real, intangible”. The Pope said “God is a real, concrete person, not some intangible essence”. You say God is intangible, the Pope says He is not. You disagree with the Pope. That is the evidence. Either you or the Pope has the wrong idea about God, you can’t both be right.

Again you’ve asked so many questions that already you forgot the answers. Paul talks of God being known (interpretation) from what has been made (a posteriori knowledge). God cannot be known a priori.

If you continue in your Staccato Interrogation Mode my next post will only contain my rank and serial number.

Since you not only evade questions but also ignore statements and distort the meaning of the Pope’s words there is no point in attempting to reason with you - as others have discovered.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**Since you not only evade questions but also ignore statements and distort the meaning of the Pope’s words there is no point in attempting to reason with you - as others have discovered. **

 

[StrawberryJam]

Since you not only evade questions but also ignore statements and distort the meaning of the Pope’s words there is no point in attempting to reason with you - as others have discovered.

On what basis must I believe what you are saying?