Critical Thinking vs. Philosophical Thinking

[Tinker Grey]

I'm not really sure what you are attempting to say here. It kinda sounds like you are setting up 'Science' as some sort of competing worldview to religion and philosophy.

On the one hand 'Science' is clearly a philosophical discipline, which is why Universities sometimes refer to their departments of 'Natural Philosophy' as Physics Departments.

Whilst on the other hand 'Science', only applies to the reality that we are able to apprehend with our direct or augmented senses. It says nothing of that which is beyond our perception.

If you can't perceive something, why believe it exists at all? Why posit this something?

 

[apogee]

If you can't perceive something, why believe it exists at all? Why posit this something?

From a scientific perspective there is absolutely no reason. Although radio waves have clearly been demonstrated to exist since at least the 1870s, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to cast doubt on their existence now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@apogee, Radio waves are not beyond perception.

 

[apogee]

@apogee, Radio waves are not beyond perception.

No, they have been within the range of perception for a good 150 years now.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, they have been within the range of perception for a good 150 years now.

And ToE longer than that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not really sure what you are attempting to say here. It kinda sounds like you are setting up 'Science' as some sort of competing worldview to religion and philosophy.

More like a competing approach towards understanding reality.

On the one hand 'Science' is clearly a philosophical discipline

No it isn't. Science is based on observation and testing of rigorous models of reality rather than creative writing.

, which is why Universities sometimes refer to their departments of 'Natural Philosophy' as Physics Departments.

Just like them having a department of political science must mean that polysci students spend all day in the lab doing experiments.

Don't get confused by marketing.

Whilst on the other hand 'Science', only applies to the reality that we are able to apprehend with our direct or augmented senses. It says nothing of that which is beyond our perception.

Does any field of study say anything useful about things which will never have any measurable impact on the known universe?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, they have been within the range of perception for a good 150 years now.

No. They've always been perceive-able whether we had the means to or not. Things that are beyond perception are things that not even in principle can be perceived. At least this is the way I use the words. That there are things that we do not perceive does not mean we will not in the future be able to perceive them.

ISTM that theists use beyond perception as a way of putting things out of reach of science while at the same time claiming to perceive these things.

 

[apogee]

More like a competing approach towards understanding reality.

No it really isn't. I'm not an advocate of 'creation science' but even they are generally attempting to reconcile their understanding of the bible, with their understanding of science.

No it isn't. Science is based on observation and testing of rigorous models of reality rather than creative writing.

Sorry where did i say anything different from this?

Just like them having a department of political science must mean that polysci students spend all day in the lab doing experiments.

umm, yes political science is indeed a science albeit a social one.

Don't get confused by marketing.

I'm not, but thanks all the same.

Does any field of study say anything useful about things which will never have any measurable impact on the known universe?

I am currently unable to decode this sentence.

 

[apogee]

No. They've always been perceive-able whether we had the means to or not. Things that are beyond perception are things that not even in principle can be perceived. At least this is the way I use the words. That there are things that we do not perceive does not mean we will not in the future be able to perceive them.

I'm going to suggest that we only consider things as perceptible, if they are currently able to be perceived. Note i didn't say Radio Waves only came into existence 150 years ago, that would be a bit silly.

ISTM that theists use beyond perception as a way of putting things out of reach of science while at the same time claiming to perceive these things.

I'm fine with you considering theists deluded, why on earth should you think otherwise?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm going to suggest that we only consider things as perceptible, if they are currently able to be perceived. Note i didn't say Radio Waves only came into existence 150 years ago, that would be a bit silly.



I'm fine with you considering theists deluded, why on earth should you think otherwise?

Why do you think things that aren't perceivable are?

 

[apogee]

Why do you think things that aren't perceivable are?

I’m not sure I’m following here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I’m not sure I’m following here.

Theists claim to believe things that aren't perceivable. Why believe the supernatural?

 

[Chesterton]

Theists claim to believe things that aren't perceivable. Why believe the supernatural?

Because in the future you may find that it's natural?

 

[apogee]

Theists claim to believe things that aren't perceivable. Why believe the supernatural?

Sorry, I'm with you now.

I cannot really comment on other religions, because I have no direct experience of them, however in my experience there is often a completely subjective and experiential aspect to religious belief.

i.e. you will find plenty of Christians around here and throughout history, who would say that they have believed, because they have directly perceived.

Although, I'm guessing I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know here.