daniel777
Well-Known Member
first of all, i do not agree with the way you're defining philosophy or science here. you seem to be defining science as "all truth arrived at from observation", and you're also assuming that philosophy for some reason never does that. that is nonsense. philosophy makes observations all the time. also, science does not make truth claims based on general observation. it makes truth claims based on a certain kind of observation, those observations that can be empirically verified. unfortunately, the assumptions that logic makes are not empirically verifiable, (law of identity, law of contradiction, law of excluded middle) so logic, at its foundation is unscientific by definition.How exactly does logic have anything to do with philosophy? Logic was formulated based upon observations and tests of the real world, and therefore logic is the result of science. We observe that things always behave certain ways, and therefore we have formulated laws to explain this behavior. Philosophy cannot come in after the fact and lay claims to logic. If philosophy is responsible for the laws logic, then please explain to us how philosophy went about defining them.
this idea of yours that only science can make observations is ridiculous.
can you scientifically verify that no square circles exist anywhere without making any philosophical assumptions?Meaningful truth has everything to do with how we understand truth. A meaningless statement, by definition, cannot be understood. A meaningless statement describes something that cannot exist in reality, such as a square circle. Can you explain what a square circle is? Of course not, a square circle has no meaning because it cannot exist in reality.
this is actually a philosophical assumption.
there are certain things a scientist questions and certain things a scientist does not question (logical contradictions), why?
who's arguing for subjective truth?If truth exists, then by definition it must exist in a meaningful way.
Meaningless truth would be meaningless.
Subjective truth results in meaningless truth because contradictions become possible, this making truth meaningless.
With objective truth there is no longer the possibility of contradictions, and therefore truth now has meaning because it can refer to something that actually exists in reality without contradictions.
no, this only proves you have very silly definitions for science and philosophy.Thus logic disproves all non-scientific approaches to knowledge:
this is begging the question.Logic proves that truth exists ("There is no truth" is a self-refuting statement if logic is true)
and science only deals with that testable "physical" reality that is also empirically verifiable.Truth must be objective in order to be logical (as I just explained in the last two paragraphs)
The only source of objective truth is reality (because reality is the only thing that is not influenced by human opinion)
Therefore observation and testing of reality is the only way to obtain truth.
also, i don't agree that logic is only the tool of science. logic is very much a tool and branch of philosophy and can be used to test beyond the physical and empirically, experimentally verifiable.
Basic assumptions of scienceThere are no assumptions being made for science.
a reliable assumption doesn't make it a fact. that's not what "fact" means, at least not in the way you're equating truth to fact.I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you could say that science started out as an assumption, aka a theory, but once it was tested it changed from theory into fact.
science can only arrive at "facts" by making probabilistic inferences from the evidence.
a probability can never be said to be 100% true or false, ie a fact.
science, if verified by itself, can never be said to be a fact.
if you accept that observation belongs to science alone.Science is the only method of discovering truth that has ever discovered any truth.
you mean in the format that assumes that all observation is only scientific? also that science never assumes anything and that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive?If you want to challenge my syllogism above, and prove that philosophy has any validity, then please provide a single example of a discovery ever made by philosophy in the format I previously outlined:
you've reduced philosophy to an abstraction without substance and elevated science to absolute truth without assumption.
Last edited:
Upvote
0