Evolution conflict and division

[Fervent]

I don't know what you're referring to.


My point is that, as someone who actually works in science, none of the topics being bandied about and debated in this thread matter to our daily work. While debates over philosophical considerations may be intellectually stimulating and engaging to some here, they have no relevance to anything I or my co-workers do.

When I scanned through the thread this morning it reminded me of a time when I asked young earth creationist what they thought my days were like at work, and the reply was so far off base it wasn't even funny. But that creationist would still lecture me about how scientists do their work.

It's frustrating.

This discussion isn't about how scientists conduct themselves or proceed with their work. It's about how science is perceived by the public and taught in schools.

 

[River Jordan]

This discussion isn't about how scientists conduct themselves or proceed with their work. It's about how science is perceived by the public and taught in schools.

Ok, thank you.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a philosopher and critical evaluator, I don't give scientists or technologists a green light of approval simply because their knowledge and various methods often work and produce 'results.'

Most of us don't think very much about absolute truth; as a little kid, I used to take stuff apart to see what was in them and to see how they worked. I think most scientists are still operating like that.

 

[The Barbarian]

This discussion isn't about how scientists conduct themselves or proceed with their work. It's about how science is perceived by the public and taught in schools.

Judging by what I see in commercials and other popular media...

 

[Fervent]

Most of us don't think very much about absolute truth; as a little kid, I used to take stuff apart to see what was in them and to see how they worked. I think most scientists are still operating like that.

Yeah, it's rare to truly dig into the question, "how do I know what I think I know?" IMO if knowledge is possible we need something to ground it in, even if it isn't practical to attempt as much. I don't claim to know nothing, but I've yet to find any satisfactory answer to the various skeptical problems that sunk philosophy until academics decided to collectively shrug and agree to stop asking those kinds of questions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most of us don't think very much about absolute truth; as a little kid, I used to take stuff apart to see what was in them and to see how they worked. I think most scientists are still operating like that.

I wasn't really referring to 'absolute truth' in relation to scientists. And like the many scientists whom you refer too, many philosophers, myself included, realize that Philosophy, like the Sciences, is made up of a menagerie of evaluative projects and not everyone herein worries about it.

I know I don't. But I'm also not a fan of Cartesian Rationalism. I'm more on the side of Galileo and Pascal where epistemology and 'metaphysical truth' are poised to go head to head.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, it's rare to truly dig into the question, "how do I know what I think I know?" IMO if knowledge is possible we need something to ground it in, even if it isn't practical to attempt as much. I don't claim to know nothing, but I've yet to find any satisfactory answer to the various skeptical problems that sunk philosophy until academics decided to collectively shrug and agree to stop asking those kinds of questions.

"Truth is a stronger notion than provability."
Douglas Hoffstader

 

[Fervent]

"Truth is a stronger notion than provability."
Douglas Hoffstader

Even provability seems an overreach to me, especially since modern epistemics almost universally begins by admitting that the skeptic is dialectically irrefutable and picking what one decides to be the least-bad option between appealing to infinite regress, circularity, and dogmatism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even provability seems an overreach to me

Some things are mathematically provable. But the mechanisms of natural phenomena are not among them.

 

[Fervent]

Some things are mathematically provable. But the mechanisms of natural phenomena are not among them.

that's true, though that's because math begins with defining its axioms so even those proofs are provisional.

 

[The Barbarian]

that's true, though that's because math begins with defining its axioms so even those proofs are provisional.

No. Math is self-contained. It defines the rules. One might argue how well it fits the real world, but within mathematics, proofs are entirely real.

 

[Fervent]

No. Math is self-contained. It defines the rules. One might argue how well it fits the real world, but within mathematics, proofs are entirely real.

Within math, but if the axioms(the defined rules) change the proofs change. If we change how we define how parallel lines behave, for instance, we have entirely new maths to work out. The provisional nature isn't on their certitude in that system, but dependent on what axioms we start with. The procedures of math aren't defined, such as modus ponens or modus tollens, and since we define the axioms we can move from them to certainty by these real procedures. But those proofs only survive if our axiomatic definitions remain unchanged.

 

[The Barbarian]

Within math, but if the axioms(the defined rules) change the proofs change. If we change how we define how parallel lines behave, for instance, we have entirely new maths to work out.

Non-Euclidean geometry, for example. But one is no less real than another. The angles of a triangle on a globe don't fit Euclidean rules. But they all work. There's a real debate as to whether math is merely a human construct or whether it is a component of the real universe. I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

 

[Fervent]

Non-Euclidean geometry, for example. But one is no less real than another. The angles of a triangle on a globe don't fit Euclidean rules. But they all work. There's a real debate as to whether math is merely a human construct or whether it is a component of the real universe. I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

I'm not sure I would classify it as part of the universe, but I am a realist about mathematical species as well. In fact, reasoning depends on mathematical constructs like modus ponens being real independent of human cognition. The only reason its debated is because recognizing abstracta as real entities creates serious problems for materialism and calls into question whether consciousness can be naturalized. But we've gone way off course from the viability of evolution and supposed conflicts. There are some philosophical arguments I could pm you with if the reality of abstracta is something you're interested in.