A proper philosophical starting point

[durangodawood]

Let´s assume for a moment that language doesn´t allow for some thoughts to be expressed.
What does that mean for philosophy when philosophy is the process of advancing ideas using this language?

E.g. if "something exists" reflects a valid idea, but is an invalid statement because it´s tautological by its form - what happens to the valid idea?
If that´s what philosophy does to valid ideas, I couldn´t care less for philosophy.

Hmm. I should have been more clear, clearly.
"Something exists" is not even an idea (I think). And thats why its not a genuine philosophical statement. Like "green is green", which I also dont think qualifies as an idea. It advances precisely nothing.

 

[quatona]

Hmm. I should have been more clear, clearly.
"Something exists" is not even an idea (I think). And thats why its not a genuine philosophical statement. Like "green is green", which I also dont think qualifies as an idea. It advances precisely nothing.

I think you were quite clear, I did understand you, and I tried to be clear about that: The statement indeed advances nothing (just like "green is green" advances nothing beyond the idea "green"), but it´s founded on an idea (which is actually the axiom): existence, being. Unfortunately, language doesn´t allow to form proper sentences to express such basic ideas.

 

[durangodawood]

I think you were quite clear, I did understand you, and I tried to be clear about that: The statement indeed advances nothing (just like "green is green" advances nothing beyond the idea "green"), but it´s founded on an idea (which is actually the axiom): existence, being. Unfortunately, language doesn´t allow to form proper sentences to express such basic ideas.

OK. Let me stipulate youre right while i thing about this more....
Can you give me one single demonstration of how the axiom "something exists" is useful for any sort of philosophical progress?

 

[Ratjaws]

And when you fail to communicate that idea reliably, it ruins your credibility and no one gets the message. Stop calling it skepticism, for the sake of clarity, call it "defeatism through skepticism".


Depends on how you define "know". If you define it by a 100% certainty of being correct, then yes, it is actually impossible to "know" anything. If you define it as reasonable certainty backed by evidence, then we can "know" plenty.


Not quite. We can eliminate ideas. I suppose the only thing that might count for the first definition of "know" above, is that we can "know" what ISN'T correct. So, not everything is up for grabs. Evidence further distinguishes the most likely to be correct conclusions from likely inaccurate ones, hence why the germ theory of disease completely dominates over the idea that demons cause disease.


Any "rule" we talk about is something we apply in an attempt to explain how our universe works. We came up with it after making observations. Only a cynical fool would think that not being 100% certain is the same as "all ideas might as well have a free for all on equal footing". Ideas can still having varying reliability without any of them being 100% absolutely ensured to be accurate.


I am not a defeatist, but I still contend that 100% certainty both cannot exist, and fooling yourself into thinking it does just hurts you. I am, however, highly skeptical, when you use the correct definition of the word rather than the one you have plopped before me. I don't have to be a defeatist as a result of not thinking absolute certainty exists, because that is in fact my current state of mind. I am living evidence that your reasoning is incorrect.


In summary, science is limited to studying that which can be measured and observed objectively. For example, how a fertilizer affects the growth of plants falls into the realm of science. As an example that falls outside that realm, morality serves as an example. Not only is it a highly subjective concept, but it can't even be conclusively objectively evidenced to exist beyond our mental perceptions. For items such as this, philosophy is the best tool we have. However, when it comes to things such as deities, they can't be scientifically demonstrated to exist or be disproven as of yet with the tools that we have, so people make the mistake of thinking that the existence of deities is a philosophical debate, when really, for all intents and purposes, it should fall under science. Since philosophy doesn't distinguish better possibilities from lesser ones, it never is conclusive in whatever people arrive at with it.


I don't doubt that, but I am not a part of that group, and neither are you, so why should I care?


Not really, I had barely even heard of the guy before our conversation. Beyond the "i think, therefore I am" quote tossed around in media, I knew absolutely nothing about him, and I have taken 2 college philosophy classes.


I think you have a distorted idea of how relevant this guy is to what is taught in school.



Anti-theists and atheists are not one and the same, and most of the atheists on here are not antitheists. I actually hate them, with a passion.



you'd want physical evidence for bigfoot, wouldn't you? also, i am more open than that.


there actually is no thought process that is good at handling the supernatural. it's concepts are too solid for philosophy to work, and too fluid for science to work.


it doesn't by definition, whether you like it or not, this statement is flat out wrong. I never know what to do beyond saying that in situations where a person is practically saying "2+2=5.


feeling confident doesn't make you right. conviction under false pretenses is functionally worse than being bogged down by doubt. Demonstrate to me exactly how people are so accurate in their thought processes that they SHOULD feel so comfortable about their own evaluations that they should always think asking people about their observations is unnecessary.

PsychoSarah,
You really don't understand what I'm saying nor do you know the philosophic method. Also I've asked you a number of pointed questions which you avoid answering directly. If you picked each one apart, as you've done with say, the particular definitions of skepticism, I could understand your position better. Until you do I have to read into how you understand subjects like empirical science and philosophy. In your own words you've had two classes in philosophy, I can only assume from a university that does not teach Thomist Realism, so you really don't have a basis for understanding my position. I am trying to get it across to you but in order for me to know you understand it, you would need to articulate it to my satisfaction, which of course you are not doing. This needs to happen whether you accept it or not and is what I am working to achieve here. Your understanding of philosophy, even if it were formidable, would not be sufficient in relation to mine because of the differences in most modern schools and the less popular one I have chosen to hold. I say all this to help you understand what's in my mind and in no way to put you down so I hope you don't misunderstand me here.

Ratjaws said: ↑
"In fact neither method needs another person to validate it's truthfulness as each of us equiped with a mind to acquire this. The reason we involve others in the scientific or philosophic search for knowledge is to..."

PsychoSarah replied:
"Feeling confident doesn't make you right. conviction under false pretenses is functionally worse than being bogged down by doubt. Demonstrate to me exactly how people are so accurate in their thought processes that they SHOULD feel so comfortable about their own evaluations that they should always think asking people about their observations is unnecessary."


My philosophic position is not about my feelings as you contend here. It's about how my mind is formed in relation to the world of mobile being around me. Again, you say "demonstrate" but leave is term out in space as to what it means. I can give you a scientific, philosophic or theological definition and each will apply to that field of knowledge. Again, I can only assume you want the demonstration to fit your material only view of the world. So again, I cannot demonstrate my metaphysical position based upon the meaning you impose upon me.

Also, you speak of "thought processes" of which I do not in relation to certain knowledge. I am referring to both the instantaneous knowledge of being we form in our mind as well as the judgments we make based upon this knowledge, of which we come to affirm or deny, and in putting two together we form a new concept that is true, because the first two are true. You also say "...always think asking people about their observations is unnecessary." This latter point of yours is not mine at all. You are jumping to an extreme saying we cannot have certain knowledge and so my position must be that I need no one else's opinion because of my certain knowledge. On the contrary I can be certain of some aspect of a being and at the same time request the confirmation of other persons, as well as desire their input in areas I am not certain about yet.

If you did understand my Thomist position you'd start to understand why I claim we can hold certainty in knowledge. It is important here that I point out, it is you who are trying to quantify my use of the term certainty. You also used the term "absolute" in describing certainty which I have not, so again I say you really don't know my position, and as such, you argue against another... not mine.

I do not say we can have any percentage of certainty; nor will I say we want an absolute certainty as these concepts are not involved in my understanding. What I mean is that truth is very broad, like a diamond that has many facets; truth has many aspects to it. So when I say we can be certain I mean in relation to one or more of these aspects of a being. Once I have a certain knowledge of some aspect of a being my mind can rest there, but not in other areas of that beings "facets". From this you should see that we can go on and on as to learning about each being in our universe and never exhaust what there is to know about them. The universe of what there is to know is vast and also has the element of mystery to it... all of which I have addressed to some degree before.

Philosophic knowledge is not shallow as you seem to think but deep... very deep. It is also "concrete" in that, as I've stated before, it is about essential being. Scientific knowledge is not about what is essential rather what is changeable... what is in flux... which again is why I've said scientists must keep going back over what they know. They work with change and therefore must constantly reevaluate to make sure the laws they use still apply.

Now again, I also have to emphasize, while empirical science focuses on the mutable aspects of each being it studies, persons doing the scientific research still have to see what is inherently essential to the being it studies. They don't comment on this because it is not their focus. As I've said before what is essential to each being has to be there in order for us to perform the scientific method at all; otherwise if there were nothing essential we could not focus on any particular being because it would have changed. This is in a way, the Hindu understanding of reality... in a constant state of flux. If our mind could not get ahold of this essential aspect of being then we'd have no scientific enterprise (as I've said before). This grasp of what is essential to a being comes from our first act of mind I called simple apprehension. It IS a philosophical concept... something I see you continue to gloss over. This is a very Thomistic observation that you have to come to grips with when you condemn the philosophic method, which can study this aspect of real being further... unlike the scientific method. It is certain knowledge as I've said before. That essentiality of each being is what makes metaphysical knowledge more certain than physical knowledge. Again, as I've said before philosophy brings out what is essential in each being, the universal aspects, while the scientific method brings out for study what is not essential, what changes, and therefore what is particular... not universal.

Now again, as I've said before, we can be certain of the scientific laws we derive from the so-called facts of science. An object will continue in a straight line unless acted upon... We can be certain of the math principles we use... you mentioned 2+2=5 as being false because we know it is 4 instead. It is always four and cannot be otherwise. We are certain of this. We know that the quantity one refers to one being and not two or three, etc... We are certain of this. We assume that there are beings that exist in our world outside our mind and we are also certain of this. The moment we give up this last assumption we have no basis for empirical science.

What we do not know for certain is the hypothesis and theories we develop in order to explain what science observes. This is what changes and cannot be otherwise because we are trying to explain the changeable aspects of the being we study with the empirical method. I've gone into the models we use and how defective they are in their current form and you ignore them in telling me how wrong my view is. YET! ...it is true the atomic/fundamental particle model has got serious problems and I've explained these without comment from you or anyone else who opposes my non-materialist position. I've even presented a way of looking at the quantum reality problem, as Einsteinians would term it, that fits much better (hylomorphic theory) but you have said nothing about it either.

Can you explain these problems I point out in a different way from my position or not? Can your materialist perspective give a congruent view of the micro-world (also the macro-world of space and time found in astrophysics), using the materialist position, that does not violate our every day experiential view??? I say you cannot because your view is flawed and is based in Cartesian doubt and the Skeptic schools of modern post Enlightenment thinking. I say it's easy for you to call me wrong but much harder for you to prove using reasonable arguments that don't violate our everyday common sense understanding of the universe.

 

[quatona]

OK. Let me stipulate youre right while i thing about this more....
Can you give me one single demonstration of how the axiom "something exists" is useful for any sort of philosophical progress?

If you compare it to the alternative ("nothing is") I think it´s easy to see how it is a proper starting point, a basis for meaningful considerations (while the alternative isn´t).
That makes it useful as a starting point. And an axiomatic starting point actually can´t and mustn´t offer more than this. How you proceed from there (make philosophical process) is a totally different question.

 

[Ratjaws]

alan watts said to "be careful of peoples metaphysical assumptions". I wonder if any human being can get rid of all his metaphysical assumptions? in the OP can you find any metaphysical assumptions? in yourself can you find your metaphysical assumptions? the OP is ofc full of metaphysical assumptions. I don't know if anyone can escape from them.

Noxot,
You are very observant... no one can escape the things they start with or assume when it comes to knowledge; nor can they think apart from some world view or philosophy. This has been a thread in all my posts... that atheists, anti-theists, agnostics, humanists, altruists, Christians, and the religious of non-Christian schools of thought all have some ordered basis for their belief. This is what philosophy means in the broad sense. In the narrow sense the term applies to one of the many schools of thought generated by Greek, Oriental or Islamic philosophers who more or less formalized their system of thought. Even if we have never had formal training in philosophy, or a specific school of thought, we still carry a weltanschauung, a view of the world with us that affects how we think about it.

 

[Ratjaws]

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

Words are defined by how we use them; definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive.

As I see Sarah using the word, I take it to mean "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity".

You could take the word "gay" and convince me that its proper use would be as an equivalent to 'happy', but should you announce to the posters in the next thread that you are gay, I suspect that their interpretation will be otherwise.

Davian,
I'm not clear as to what word you mean PsychoSarah is defining in this way? I assume you are pointing to her use of the term philosophy, which she has used very narrowly and in effect cordoned off from the material world. She wrongly does so, making no question about it, that the philosophical method is useless for giving us reliable or valid knowledge about any material aspect of our world. She insists it has to do with the more abstract concepts of love and morality, of which I agree it can be used on, but I would not limit it to. On the other hand I consider the philosophical method to be applicable to all areas of life, but in the specific way it comes to knowledge. As I've tried to get her to see... philosophy gets at essential being as opposed to non-essential or changeable being. There is clear distinction between the philosophic and scientific method, both of which have limits on the kind of knowledge they provide. At the same time there is overlap in the knowledge they provide which means they support each other (when done right).

What you did not address is that we don't use language in just philosophy. We use it in every area of life including the scientific enterprise. People tend to neglect this important truth when they make these false distinctions between the two methods. I suspect the definition you gave, "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity" is applicable to the scientific method in her mind rather than the philosophic. I'll let her correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me if the form you define here has to do with valid knowledge of our material world, then her view is it must be scientific only. It's why I call her a materialist. This definition is a very modern one that presupposes materiality. It's taught in our primary and higher educational schools and as I've said to Sarah, comes out of the Enlightenment Rationalist line of thinking, which by the way was a refutation of Martin Luther's fideism. So how we've been culturally conditioned to think in our modern schools has to do with two over reactions. The first was to make faith the only valid means to knowledge and the second, a reaction to the first as I just said, to make reason the only valid means. Both are exaggerations because in fact both faith and reason are important to acquiring a full understanding of our world. And both are used in the scientific and philosophic methods; despite the insistence of those who disagree with this appraisal of mine.

Furthermore, reasoning is one thing, "critical thinking" is quite another. I've laid out extensively what ratiocination (reasoning) is and won't do so again here unless needed. Critical thinking is a phrase used in modern schools that tends to overlook moral considerations and leans strongly on logic. It is flawed precisely because it does leave out this area of ethical concern. If we try to do our science without a moral foundation we end up justifying Hitler's methods of medical research. Also any attempt at critical thinking that leaves out the philosophic method is, as I've said before, a narrowing down of reality that is not only unnecessary, but can be dangerous in that it leaves us without proper knowledge necessary for good judgment.

I should also add there are critical thinkers who tend to leave even logic out of the equation and lean on emotion instead. I've seen this as I've walked in the prolife movement where the arguments against protecting human life either revolve around undefined words, euphemisms, or emotional arguments. They are even used in our political discussions, as exemplified by the "push grandma over a cliff in her wheel chair" argument, that government healthcare advocates use against free marketers.

 

[durangodawood]

Noxot,
You are very observant... no one can escape the things they start with or assume when it comes to knowledge; nor can they think apart from some world view or philosophy. This has been a thread in all my posts... that atheists, anti-theists, agnostics, humanists, altruists, Christians, and the religious of non-Christian schools of thought all have some ordered basis for their belief. This is what philosophy means in the broad sense. In the narrow sense the term applies to one of the many schools of thought generated by Greek, Oriental or Islamic philosophers who more or less formalized their system of thought. Even if we have never had formal training in philosophy, or a specific school of thought, we still carry a weltanschauung, a view of the world with us that affects how we think about it.

Some people try to become conscious of their metaphysical assumptions.
Others are content to wrap themselves in a cozy blanket of un-examined certainty.
Yet others flit from distraction to distraction avoiding the topic altogether.

 

[PsychoSarah]

PsychoSarah,
You really don't understand what I'm saying nor do you know the philosophic method. Also I've asked you a number of pointed questions which you avoid answering directly. If you picked each one apart, as you've done with say, the particular definitions of skepticism, I could understand your position better. Until you do I have to read into how you understand subjects like empirical science and philosophy. In your own words you've had two classes in philosophy, I can only assume from a university that does not teach Thomist Realism, so you really don't have a basis for understanding my position. I am trying to get it across to you but in order for me to know you understand it, you would need to articulate it to my satisfaction, which of course you are not doing. This needs to happen whether you accept it or not and is what I am working to achieve here. Your understanding of philosophy, even if it were formidable, would not be sufficient in relation to mine because of the differences in most modern schools and the less popular one I have chosen to hold. I say all this to help you understand what's in my mind and in no way to put you down so I hope you don't misunderstand me here.

No, I know exactly what type of philosophy you hold dear. It just so happens that I am not a fan of Thomas Aquinas's arguments. In fact, one of the exercises in my philosophy class was to show how many flaws and assumptions were in his arguments. Basically, his philosophy is such garbage, that college STUDENTS pick it apart as a learning exercise. And you hold yourself to such outdated, flawed logic? Heck, even when this guy was still alive, people were picking out the problems in his arguments. The very people he sought to convince with them were left unimpressed.

We aren't taught Thomist Realism as if it is a serious contender, because it isn't one. We are taught about it, though.

My philosophic position is not about my feelings as you contend here. It's about how my mind is formed in relation to the world of mobile being around me. Again, you say "demonstrate" but leave is term out in space as to what it means. I can give you a scientific, philosophic or theological definition and each will apply to that field of knowledge. Again, I can only assume you want the demonstration to fit your material only view of the world. So again, I cannot demonstrate my metaphysical position based upon the meaning you impose upon me.

I thought I made it clear from previous responses that I am from a different school of philosophical thought than you, though not necessarily in the one you keep placing me in. I don't have any obligation to go by your rules. You have to admit that under the scrutiny of mine, your philosophical points have absolutely no weight, or you have to adapt your arguments to actually giving arguments with some degree of logic that isn't completely invalid from my perspective. If you can't demonstrate anything, or give a logical reason through observation for making some of your conclusions, you can't promote your philosophy as if it is conclusive. You can think it is all you like, but you won't be convincing anyone else to agree with you.

Also, you speak of "thought processes" of which I do not in relation to certain knowledge. I am referring to both the instantaneous knowledge of being we form in our mind as well as the judgments we make based upon this knowledge, of which we come to affirm or deny, and in putting two together we form a new concept that is true, because the first two are true. You also say "...always think asking people about their observations is unnecessary." This latter point of yours is not mine at all. You are jumping to an extreme saying we cannot have certain knowledge and so my position must be that I need no one else's opinion because of my certain knowledge. On the contrary I can be certain of some aspect of a being and at the same time request the confirmation of other persons, as well as desire their input in areas I am not certain about yet.

In any instance that you decide to go with your own judgement, as opposed to investigating the conclusions of others, you are willfully choosing the path that makes it more likely that your conclusion has errors. Do you agree with this, or disagree?

If you did understand my Thomist position you'd start to understand why I claim we can hold certainty in knowledge. It is important here that I point out, it is you who are trying to quantify my use of the term certainty. You also used the term "absolute" in describing certainty which I have not, so again I say you really don't know my position, and as such, you argue against another... not mine.

Yeah, but your real problem is adhering to a philosophy that has been known to be flawed for practically as long as it has existed. Also, I guess I need you to define certainty now, since you aren't using a typical definition for that either. This counts as strike 2.

I do not say we can have any percentage of certainty; nor will I say we want an absolute certainty as these concepts are not involved in my understanding. What I mean is that truth is very broad, like a diamond that has many facets; truth has many aspects to it.

What truth is happens to be a subject of philosophical debate in and of itself. I view truth in practice to be the closest people can come to understanding reality as it actually is. People can never fully reach an understanding of reality, thanks to issues of bias, difference in perception, etc., but we can strive to get very, very close to it. To me, reality is the ultimate of understanding we attempt to reach, and our "truth" is as close to it as we can get. Truth may have variety, but reality doesn't. However, reality only covers that which can be, at any point, objective, so concepts such as justice or morality are unrelated to truth entirely.

Obviously, this clashes with your definition of truth, so unless you can present a logical argument that can convince me that your view of truth is somehow better than mine, there is no point in trying to involve truth as a concept of contention in our discussion anymore. I am not interested in trying to convince you that mine is better, because from the perspective of my philosophical school of thought, that would be silly; neither of us is demonstrably right or wrong with any significant evidence to back it up, so arguing it would be a waste of time. We can both make claims about what truth is, but ultimately, what we say is more opinion than anything else. Also, the reason why I don't give my philosophical school of thought a name is because it doesn't have one; it's a conglomerate of aspects of many schools of thought with my own personal twist... which is completely valid to do in philosophy.

So when I say we can be certain I mean in relation to one or more of these aspects of a being. Once I have a certain knowledge of some aspect of a being my mind can rest there, but not in other areas of that beings "facets". From this you should see that we can go on and on as to learning about each being in our universe and never exhaust what there is to know about them. The universe of what there is to know is vast and also has the element of mystery to it... all of which I have addressed to some degree before.

What there is to know about the universe is finite, but so expansive that we will never learn it all. Even attempting to store all that information would be impossible. However, there is plenty that I view as negligible in use, such as knowing the location of every atom. Also "mystery" is just another way of saying you don't know, and any claims about said mystery being this or that are conjecture on your part.

Philosophic knowledge is not shallow as you seem to think but deep... very deep. It is also "concrete" in that, as I've stated before, it is about essential being. Scientific knowledge is not about what is essential rather what is changeable... what is in flux... which again is why I've said scientists must keep going back over what they know. They work with change and therefore must constantly reevaluate to make sure the laws they use still apply.

You've got that pretty backwards, but I am not shocked that you view philosophy as unchanging, seeing as you adhere to what should be a dead philosophical school of thought. Science does not change, the theories do as we add information to them, or learn information that disproves them. However, the basic scientific approach has had no significant changes to it since its inception. Philosophy has changed a lot over the centuries, though, admittedly, not particularly fast. There are many schools of thought in Philosophy, but there is only one correct Scientific Method. The saddest part of this debate of ours, is realizing that you have been relying on well-known flawed philosophy for the basis of many of your arguments. You just haven't been using the parts I am more familiar with.

Now again, I also have to emphasize, while empirical science focuses on the mutable aspects of each being it studies, persons doing the scientific research still have to see what is inherently essential to the being it studies.

I don't think you understand what science studies, or what philosophy studies. Stable traits and changing traits that are measurable and observable both fall under science. When philosophy tries to get in on those, it always results in an iffy, unusable conclusion. Philosophy doesn't study beings, it studies ideas.

They don't comment on this because it is not their focus. As I've said before what is essential to each being has to be there in order for us to perform the scientific method at all; otherwise if there were nothing essential we could not focus on any particular being because it would have changed.

The closest I can come to understanding the strange sentences here is that you are talking about Independent Variables (which are changed, not left unchanged. This goes for dependent variables too, things are always changing), or something similar. You have to understand, in science, while some assumptions have to be made about how the world works, this isn't a matter of philosophy in the slightest. Philosophy and science do not mix well, that's how things like eugenics and Social Darwinism end up happening.

This is in a way, the Hindu understanding of reality... in a constant state of flux. If our mind could not get ahold of this essential aspect of being then we'd have no scientific enterprise (as I've said before). This grasp of what is essential to a being comes from our first act of mind I called simple apprehension. It IS a philosophical concept... something I see you continue to gloss over. This is a very Thomistic observation that you have to come to grips with when you condemn the philosophic method, which can study this aspect of real being further... unlike the scientific method. It is certain knowledge as I've said before. That essentiality of each being is what makes metaphysical knowledge more certain than physical knowledge. Again, as I've said before philosophy brings out what is essential in each being, the universal aspects, while the scientific method brings out for study what is not essential, what changes, and therefore what is particular... not universal.

If I gloss over it, it is because you are a part of a philosophic school of thought that, from my perspective, never had any value because it is so flawed. I just have to wonder how a modern person gets taught philosophy that is this backward. It's like encountering a person that thinks night air is bad for you in modern Britain. Also, I wouldn't consider apprehension to be philosophical in practice; philosophy would be evaluating how it influences ideas, not what it literally is, apprehension, (as you mistakenly use a word for something it doesn't mean, but at least I can tell what you are trying to say from context this time. Evaluation and reasoning are better terms) is not abstract enough to be completely in the realm of philosophy.

Now again, as I've said before, we can be certain of the scientific laws we derive from the so-called facts of science.

The term "law" in science has no meaning whatsoever. Those "laws" are theories, and just as a personal observation, not a rule, I have noticed that most of the ones that end up being called "laws" have a lot of math in them. However, despite the pointless, arbitrary name, all "scientific laws" are theories with a different label slapped on. They aren't even the best or strongest theories. Also, boo, why are you bringing up science again?

An object will continue in a straight line unless acted upon... We can be certain of the math principles we use... you mentioned 2+2=5 as being false because we know it is 4 instead. It is always four and cannot be otherwise. We are certain of this. We know that the quantity one refers to one being and not two or three, etc... We are certain of this. We assume that there are beings that exist in our world outside our mind and we are also certain of this. The moment we give up this last assumption we have no basis for empirical science.

I take this moment to bring up that there are multiple proofs that actually disprove math. There are valid equations which solutions are 1=0 and the like. We just keep using math because we can't even imagine something better to use, as of yet. So, yeah, math is far from perfect. Heck, 1/3 and similar fractions, multiplied by the denominator, don't technically equal 1, but numbers like .9 repeating, they are just so close to it that we round up, because it is contradictory that dividing and then multiplying by the same number won't give the original amount from the start. Yet, that is technically what ends up happening.

Did you not realize that "everything you know is wrong, black is white and short is long...", sorry, the song fits really well here.

What we do not know for certain is the hypothesis and theories we develop in order to explain what science observes. This is what changes and cannot be otherwise because we are trying to explain the changeable aspects of the being we study with the empirical method.

Science also approaches stable, relatively unchanging aspects of the universe. I say relatively, because nothing stays the same forever. Even physics as we understand them didn't exist until some point after the Big Bang.

I've gone into the models we use and how defective they are in their current form and you ignore them in telling me how wrong my view is. YET! ...it is true the atomic/fundamental particle model has got serious problems and I've explained these without comment from you or anyone else who opposes my non-materialist position. I've even presented a way of looking at the quantum reality problem, as Einsteinians would term it, that fits much better (hylomorphic theory) but you have said nothing about it either.

In all honesty, I am not a physics major, but a biology major. If your argument is crap, I don't have the expertise and background to feel comfortable calling you out on it. I do know, however, that this doesn't belong in a philosophical debate. There are subforums for physics related issues. The fact that you don't realize that physics is not supposed to be explained by philosophy makes me extremely concerned. That might have flown back in the 13th century, before the Scientific Method was standardized, but it is inexcusable to try to do that in the 21st century.

Can you explain these problems I point out in a different way from my position or not? Can your materialist perspective give a congruent view of the micro-world (also the macro-world of space and time found in astrophysics), using the materialist position, that does not violate our every day experiential view??? I say you cannot because your view is flawed and is based in Cartesian doubt and the Skeptic schools of modern post Enlightenment thinking. I say it's easy for you to call me wrong but much harder for you to prove using reasonable arguments that don't violate our everyday common sense understanding of the universe.

I see the "micro-world" in a microscope on a weekly basis; I don't know what about it you think can't be explained scientifically. Ask me anything about microbiology you want, but it isn't related to philosophy, so put it in a private message so as to not derail the topic of discussion. As I have stated before, doubt is not a cause for throwing everything out the window, it is just an acceptance that there is always a possibility, no matter how small, of being wrong. If you find that upsetting or unacceptable, that sounds like a personal problem to me, not one with the system. Also, stop asking me about space and physics, I doubt my understanding of those topics is expansive enough to keep satisfying you if you keep prodding me with it.

One of the clear signs that you don't know what you are doing, is that you are asking questions that can't be thought through logically alone. A person shouldn't have to know about physics, biology, or any other scientific topic to keep up in a philosophical debate about the value or lack thereof in doubt, because doubt has no relation to those topics in any specific way.

Also, from my school of thought's perspective, that is, from my own, the majority of the "problems" you bring up sound like personal whining, not legitimate issues.

 

[Chany]

I would like to point out, if someone has not already, that appealing to common sense is considered a logical fallacy because it is nothing but an appeal to the emotional gut-reactions found in specific group of people, as well as an appeal to popularity in many cases. It usually turns out to be an appeal to the crowd and the audience's emotions to avoid actually dealing with an argument. Of course, the intuitions of people can very from group to group, so it shuts down discussion when someone from one group discusses a subject with another group. Now, intuition does play a part in philosophy, but it is never appealed to just on its own. It is always done with an examination of the intuition or an argument for why intuitions are valid to appeal to in this case, but it is never just presented as "intuition that p; therefore, p."

On a practical level, appealing to common sense is also problematic as it can be turned against the arguer. For example, some people find it common-sensical that God exists. However, there are also people who find it common-sensical that God does not exist. The winner of the discussion is not the person with the best arguments, sound reasoning, or empirical evidence if we appeal to common sense. The winner is whoever has the overwhelming majority of people in the crowd in order to psychologically pressure the opposition into conforming with the majority's beliefs. Therefore, it turns the God debate into a sham.

 

[Davian]

Davian,
I'm not clear as to what word you mean PsychoSarah is defining in this way?

Skepticism. Check back to post #66 where I quoted your post.

... I suspect the definition you gave, "the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity" is applicable to the scientific method in her mind rather than the philosophic.

I make no such distinction, as that would be special pleading.

...
Furthermore, reasoning is one thing, "critical thinking" is quite another. I've laid out extensively what ratiocination (reasoning) is and won't do so again here unless needed. Critical thinking is a phrase used in modern schools that tends to overlook moral considerations and leans strongly on logic. It is flawed precisely because it does leave out this area of ethical concern.

Sounds like a fallacious argument from consequences.

If we try to do our science without a moral foundation we end up justifying Hitler's methods of medical research. Also any attempt at critical thinking that leaves out the philosophic method is, as I've said before, a narrowing down of reality that is not only unnecessary, but can be dangerous in that it leaves us without proper knowledge necessary for good judgment.

From the this context and your earlier posts I gather you are conflating "philosophic" with "theistic".

 

[Ratjaws]

I would like to point out, if someone has not already, that appealing to common sense is considered a logical fallacy because it is nothing but an appeal to the emotional gut-reactions found in specific group of people, as well as an appeal to popularity in many cases. It usually turns out to be an appeal to the crowd and the audience's emotions to avoid actually dealing with an argument. Of course, the intuitions of people can very from group to group, so it shuts down discussion when someone from one group discusses a subject with another group. Now, intuition does play a part in philosophy, but it is never appealed to just on its own. It is always done with an examination of the intuition or an argument for why intuitions are valid to appeal to in this case, but it is never just presented as "intuition that p; therefore, p."

On a practical level, appealing to common sense is also problematic as it can be turned against the arguer. For example, some people find it common-sensical that God exists. However, there are also people who find it common-sensical that God does not exist. The winner of the discussion is not the person with the best arguments, sound reasoning, or empirical evidence if we appeal to common sense. The winner is whoever has the overwhelming majority of people in the crowd in order to psychologically pressure the opposition into conforming with the majority's beliefs. Therefore, it turns the God debate into a sham.

`
Sorry Chany, that's not how I use the terms common sense. In past posts I used it in connection with not walking into walls, which is not an emotional thing but just plain good thinking. All sound philosophy starts with the kind of thinking that enables one to walk around without getting hurt or killed. Of course there is an emotional component to avoiding harm or death but nevertheless most of us use our mind to avoid evil and embrace good. Opps... there's that nagging moral thinking again which the average person, who succeeds in walking around day after day, ends up acquiescing to.

You guys and your appeal to logic! It would seem everything is empiricism (the scientific method misused) wrapped up in a pseudo-logical thinking that excludes any moral undergirding (applied as ethics). You damn philosophy as PsychoSarah has done by cordoning it off to "abstract" concepts rather than anything real; yet... completely miss we have both science and logic because of Aristotle (and his Greek predecessors) and his love of wisdom (Phalia + Sophia = Philosophy). Then too this appeal to logic is always over methodical thinking (minor logic) and rarely if ever, applies to whether we arrive at truth (major logic) even if it were to fall in the immaterial/supernatural realms, which it cannot by definition because your materialism forbids it.

Speaking of emotion, what else can it be that drives one to attack those who believe in a God that is said not to exist? For me as a religious and thinking person who accepts the material, philosophical and theological sciences (scientia meaning knowledge), emotion is a necessary component to my study of our universe in all it's natural and supernatural aspects. It's just I recognize an order necessary to ones thinking, or as St. Francis said best: "let reason rule passion, let God rule reason." So you guys can go on using every logical fallacy argument to rid your mind of the immaterial/supernatural realms, while avoiding all emotion, but fortunately reality doesn't conform to your mind any more than it does mine.

Oh, and speaking of appealing to popular opinion, isn't peer review a fundamental factor in scientific scrutiny? It has been rightly said that one is never so blind as he who refuses to see!

Out of all who have chimed into this conversation on a philosophical starting point, I've had only two opponents who have seriously debated me (Archaeopteryx and PsychoSarah). Of course they have not ventured very far from their safe ground of matter and energy but at the same time neither have they solved the many pressing problems with modern scientific thought that I've brought to light here. I encourage anyone who really thinks their materialist, idealist, reductionist, empiricist, rationalist perspective is the best to answer some of the questions I've put forth in this thread (and several others) to address these issues. I constantly read about them in the scientific journals and find them to be more and more absurd, defying not just good logic, but common everyday walking around sense. Come on guys/gals... particles that "know" what other particles do! Time travel, black and worm holes, multiverses, Schrodinger's cat that is both alive and dead! Or how about "fundamental" particles that have a growing number of more fundamental particles underlying them and that refuse to act in a particulate manner but as waves. Or how about the most exact branch of material science, physics, called so because it uses mathematics, yet becoming more and more a logic defying exercise in the pseudo-exact statistical analysis (probability)??? So much for the certainty of truth in a scientific method who's "logic" denies what was so obvious to the pagan Greeks (i.e.: the form in behind matter) yet goes on using abstract mathematical formulas and speaks of energy as another form of matter.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Out of all who have chimed into this conversation on a philosophical starting point, I've had only two opponents who have seriously debated me (Archaeopteryx and PsychoSarah).

I see my name mentioned, so might as well comment...

Of course they have not ventured very far from their safe ground of matter and energy but at the same time neither have they solved the many pressing problems with modern scientific thought that I've brought to light here.

I'm not sure what problems you are referring to here, nor do I recall any mention of how your theology resolves those supposed problems.

I encourage anyone who really thinks their materialist, idealist, reductionist, empiricist, rationalist perspective is the best to answer some of the questions I've put forth in this thread (and several others) to address these issues. I constantly read about them in the scientific journals and find them to be more and more absurd, defying not just good logic, but common everyday walking around sense. Come on guys/gals... particles that "know" what other particles do! Time travel, black and worm holes, multiverses, Schrodinger's cat that is both alive and dead! Or how about "fundamental" particles that have a growing number of more fundamental particles underlying them and that refuse to act in a particulate manner but as waves. Or how about the most exact branch of material science, physics, called so because it uses mathematics, yet becoming more and more a logic defying exercise in the pseudo-exact statistical analysis (probability)???

I'm not sure what you expect us to address here. You seem to be venturing perilously close to an appeal to personal incredulity.

So much for the certainty of truth in a scientific method who's "logic" denies what was so obvious to the pagan Greeks (i.e.: the form in behind matter) yet goes on using abstract mathematical formulas and speaks of energy as another form of matter.

But science doesn't aim for absolute certainty.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Doesnt a "proper philsophical starting point" presume we know what is proper to philosophy?

Soo maybe we ought to go back to thales of miletus, IIRC the earliest of the presocratic philosophers? And his contention that water was the "principle of things".


And the end of philosophy, materialism? No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)


So anti essentialism it my take. We stared off with water and ended up with something more slippery still.

The principle of things is "___"!!!

 

[Sea Anemone]

Gonna chime in here for a bit, because these are three very common misconceptions about math.

I take this moment to bring up that there are multiple proofs that actually disprove math.

I take it you are referring to Gödel's incompleteness theorems? If so, they force us to choose between consistency (no contradictions can be formed with your chosen axioms) and completeness (not all true statements can be proven with the chosen axioms) and we can opt for the former choice without problems (side note: some very easy systems of arithmetic, such as Presburgers' system can be shown to be both, however).

There are valid equations which solutions are 1=0 and the like.

And they are all dividing by zero at one point or another.

We just keep using math because we can't even imagine something better to use, as of yet. So, yeah, math is far from perfect. Heck, 1/3 and similar fractions, multiplied by the denominator, don't technically equal 1, but numbers like .9 repeating, they are just so close to it that we round up, because it is contradictory that dividing and then multiplying by the same number won't give the original amount from the start. Yet, that is technically what ends up happening.

There is no rounding up, they are exactly one and the same, take a look at Dedekind's construction of the real numbers if you don't believe me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Gonna chime in here for a bit, because these are three very common misconceptions about math.

I take it you are referring to Gödel's incompleteness theorems? If so, they force us to choose between consistency (no contradictions can be formed with your chosen axioms) and completeness (not all true statements can be proven with the chosen axioms) and we can opt for the former choice without problems (side note: some very easy systems of arithmetic, such as Presburgers' system can be shown to be both, however).

And they are all dividing by zero at one point or another.


There is no rounding up, they are exactly one and the same, take a look at Dedekind's construction of the real numbers if you don't believe me.

Yeah, I should probably watch my mouth on this one... or, my typing fingers. Anyways, corrections are always welcome for when I am wrong. Although, I would consider the fact that dividing by zero is not allowed to be a flaw in math, but that is just a personal view, I know logically, dividing something into 0 groups is nonsense.

 

[Chriliman]

1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

Great thoughts, but one can't start by knowing what is true. You must start by asking honest questions with the intent of finding the truth. It's literally impossible for a human being to start with a true philosophy or start knowing their philosophy is true.

 

[Ratjaws]

I see my name mentioned, so might as well comment...

I'm not sure what problems you are referring to here, nor do I recall any mention of how your theology resolves those supposed problems.

I'm not sure what you expect us to address here. You seem to be venturing perilously close to an appeal to personal incredulity.

But science doesn't aim for absolute certainty.

Arch,
Good to hear from you again. Who said anything about "absolute certainty." Certainly I did not! This might be PsychoSarah's take on my view but it is a misunderstanding. Nor have I spoken of certainty in percentages either... as PsychoSarah has. When I bring up certain knowledge it has to do with what is essential to being as well as particular aspects of being. It's not absolute (of everything knowable) nor what is mutable in being (by definition it would change and you would lose certainty).

We were not speaking of theology solving problems here. I'm addressing problems with the modern scientific view often termed quantum strangeness that come from the modern philosophical view(s) scientists (and their popularizers) hold today. If you've read my posts to PsychoSarah you'd see I strongly question the atomic/fundamental particle theory (which as a theory has a philosophical underpinning) and have proposed another (hylomorphic theory) that does not come with these problems that violate our everyday experience.

Evidently you've not been paying attention...

 

[Ratjaws]

Great thoughts, but one can't start by knowing what is true. You must start by asking honest questions with the intent of finding the truth. It's literally impossible for a human being to start with a true philosophy or start knowing their philosophy is true.

Chriliman,
Wrong! We start by knowing some being then asking questions about it. If this were not true we would not be compelled to know anything. For instance, in a room you hear a noise from behind you. At this moment you know something happened that involved some being. You turn to find out more about it, then observe it was a cat that knocked a book off a shelf (can you tell I got cats?). Through our sense of hearing we first came have knowledge then we sought to learn more about it through our sense of sight. We might walk up to the shelf and smell the surrounding air. We touch the book as we pick it up looking closer at it and the shelf. We see the cat and say something to it expecting a response. The first knowledge we have is instantaneous (simple apprehension) and requires no judgment. It is prescientific knowledge as such. Next we scrutinize closer and proceed to make judgments that are based upon our initial knowledge of the beings involved.

We can proceed further to do scientific study but even this comes after the initial encounter and prescientific judgments we've made. In doing so we will probably make use of scientific instruments that extend our senses. We study all the changeable aspects of being such as chemical activity, growth, assimilation, etc... and deal with what is quantitative directly, and qualitative indirectly. We never come to the substance of the beings we study with the scientific method even though we discover truth concerning the beings studied.

To know what is substantial to the cat, shelf or book we proceed prior to the scientific study to look closer and form judgments about the beings involved. We concentrate on the more universal aspects in contrast to the scientific focus on particular aspects. In doing so we come to know what is essential... the catness or bookness or shelfness of these beings. We can also take the post philosophical findings of our study, that is the scientific findings, and study them from a philosophical perspective. We can reflect on essences from what is accidental (the scientific changeableness) or we can seek what is more "concrete" from the scientific findings (do deeper philosophical study). In this way we see truth from both the scientific and philosophical perspectives albeit they are different kinds of truth. These truths come from actual beings that exist and enter our mind through our senses, including our brain which synthesizes this disparate sense activity into perceptible ideas that our mind can work with. From these perceptions we conceive intellectual ideas or concepts that include what is substantial and accidental to the beings involved. We end up with both metaphysical (philosophical) and physical (scientific) truth from the self-evident truth immediately recognized upon our first encounter of any given being.

So we must recognize being first, that it exists, that it is what it is, it is unique and has universal characteristics; and this is called truth in relation to our mind, that is in relation to the knowledge forming our mind... even though it is prior to further judgments whether metaphysical or physical in nature. If we did not first have some recognition of truth in our mind of an existing being then we'd "look" no further. Absent a being present to our senses we'd perceive nothing and therefore gain no further knowledge. We'd make no judgments and form no opinions (uncertain knowledge) or certain knowledge because there is nothing to form our mind. What exists around us is intelligible which means it exists to form our mind. Intelligent beings, like us, have the capacity to unite with whatever exists around us. We do so by allowing being around us form our intellect and this is why we are said to be informed. We call this knowledge information precisely because it forms our intellect from within, in accord with whatever being is present to our senses. In short we recognize being as forms within our mind, as truth that is, then proceed to gather more information (truth); in other words we want to know more deeply what is present to our senses. In a way we perceive to know because of what we already know, contrary to what you've proposed.

 

[Chriliman]

Chriliman,
Wrong! We start by knowing some being then asking questions about it. If this were not true we would not be compelled to know anything. For instance, in a room you hear a noise from behind you. At this moment you know something happened that involved some being. You turn to find out more about it, then observe it was a cat that knocked a book off a shelf (can you tell I got cats?). Through our sense of hearing we first came have knowledge then we sought to learn more about it through our sense of sight. We might walk up to the shelf and smell the surrounding air. We touch the book as we pick it up looking closer at it and the shelf. We see the cat and say something to it expecting a response. The first knowledge we have is instantaneous (simple apprehension) and requires no judgment. It is prescientific knowledge as such. Next we scrutinize closer and proceed to make judgments that are based upon our initial knowledge of the beings involved.

We can proceed further to do scientific study but even this comes after the initial encounter and prescientific judgments we've made. In doing so we will probably make use of scientific instruments that extend our senses. We study all the changeable aspects of being such as chemical activity, growth, assimilation, etc... and deal with what is quantitative directly, and qualitative indirectly. We never come to the substance of the beings we study with the scientific method even though we discover truth concerning the beings studied.

To know what is substantial to the cat, shelf or book we proceed prior to the scientific study to look closer and form judgments about the beings involved. We concentrate on the more universal aspects in contrast to the scientific focus on particular aspects. In doing so we come to know what is essential... the catness or bookness or shelfness of these beings. We can also take the post philosophical findings of our study, that is the scientific findings, and study them from a philosophical perspective. We can reflect on essences from what is accidental (the scientific changeableness) or we can seek what is more "concrete" from the scientific findings (do deeper philosophical study). In this way we see truth from both the scientific and philosophical perspectives albeit they are different kinds of truth. These truths come from actual beings that exist and enter our mind through our senses, including our brain which synthesizes this disparate sense activity into perceptible ideas that our mind can work with. From these perceptions we conceive intellectual ideas or concepts that include what is substantial and accidental to the beings involved. We end up with both metaphysical (philosophical) and physical (scientific) truth from the self-evident truth immediately recognized upon our first encounter of any given being.

So we must recognize being first, that it exists, that it is what it is, it is unique and has universal characteristics; and this is called truth in relation to our mind, that is in relation to the knowledge forming our mind... even though it is prior to further judgments whether metaphysical or physical in nature. If we did not first have some recognition of truth in our mind of an existing being then we'd "look" no further. Absent a being present to our senses we'd perceive nothing and therefore gain no further knowledge. We'd make no judgments and form no opinions (uncertain knowledge) or certain knowledge because there is nothing to form our mind. What exists around us is intelligible which means it exists to form our mind. Intelligent beings, like us, have the capacity to unite with whatever exists around us. We do so by allowing being around us form our intellect and this is why we are said to be informed. We call this knowledge information precisely because it forms our intellect from within, in accord with whatever being is present to our senses. In short we recognize being as forms within our mind, as truth that is, then proceed to gather more information (truth); in other words we want to know more deeply what is present to our senses. In a way we perceive to know because of what we already know only contrary to what you've proposed.

I still don't think we start by knowing our philosophy is true. We start not knowing anything then accept the truth that we exist or that something exists that we can observe and begin gaining knowledge about.

If we started by knowing our philosophy is true, there would be no reason to ask questions because we'd already know we have the true philosophy.