Dubious wrote:JSS wrote:Dubious, you are getting the cart before the horse
Not if the horse is physics pulling the cart.
That is the point. It isn't. You have merely been given that impression while science is being socially promoted as the supreme priesthood of Man.
Dubious wrote:
JSS wrote:Knowing what isn't true tells you almost nothing of what IS true.
But it's certainly one of the paths to knowing what is. Filtering out falsehoods is a prime directive in science without any such equalizing pressures existing within the famed precincts of philosophy.
I agree. The scientific method was very useful toward filtering out a great deal of nonsense. But it is limited and has passed beyond its limits such that now what is said in the name of science is pure nonsense, but no one can dispute it because it requires a laboratory and much guarded media time. The social promotion of scientists keeps the religiousity and dogmatic propaganda going.
REAL Science is THIS:
Nullius in Verba
But look at all of the science worshipers doing to exact opposite.
Dubious wrote: it's now one of the main distinctions between the two disciplines causing a near state of total separation.
Only by the fanatical extremists, just like all of the other religions, "
WE are the source of ALL TRUTH, Goddamnit!!"
Dubious wrote:Philosophy mostly talks in terms of Truth as if it were some sacred reference to an object or thought while science strives within a probability range of something being true without denoting it as an actual Truth…again a world of difference.
Learn what logic is really all about and all of that gets straightened out.
In ignorance, what is there to do but worship in faith that others have worked it out.
You either learn, or worship in ignorance (preferably learn of logic).
Dubious wrote:JSS wrote:There are very many issues that Science cannot deal with. One is the issue of consistent ontology or even fully understanding what an ontology is.
Can you explain of what use an ontology would be in reference to, let's say, black holes, the Standard Model, space and time or the recent discovery of Gravitational Waves, the last great prediction of GR that even Einstein thought could never be proven. In what way are physicists to employ an ontology in these matters? Since you made the statement, you should know.
As you should know by now, I know of Affectance Ontology wherein ALL of the issues in physics are completely, and simply in most cases, resolved, including Young's Double-Slit and the Mach-Zehner phenomenon.
And gravitational waves prove very little of anything. Why Einstein would think that couldn't exist, I don't know. I know of their make, so to me, it is no big issue at all. The fun question is one of how fast and how strong can you make them. How far can you get them to propagate at what strength?
Dubious wrote:Both you and Leo claim to have solved most or all of the problems in physics, each in his own way having identified those problems within the mental constructs of philosophy. These not being properly factored in or completely excluded by physicists, cause both of you to believe that physics is now nothing more than a pseudo-science in Nemo land.
That is what science has BECOME. Today, science, as you know it, is no more than the latest dogmatic religion. It wasn't supposed to be that, but now it is.
Dubious wrote:I'm certain that each of you have solved most of the problems you mention to your satisfaction in restoring physics within the legal confines of philosophy...even though your use of terms is sometimes highly confusing. But the question remains, what problems have you ACTUALLY solved beyond creating theories meant to rectify the errors of physics as compared to all those you both insist on having solved to put physics and physicists back in their proper place? You both write a lot but has any inherent value or close probability of your views been demonstrated as required by physics to be granted consideration? Of course, it could also all be meant as a mind game which is what philosophy forums are for.
I don't know about Leo, but I have developed the very thing that science proposes to be in search of, a "Unified Field Theory" and "Grand Unified Theory". As to why they want it, that is another issue. I can, an have, explained everything in physics (more than science currently explains) using only one field.