Philosophy Now Forum

-1- wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:48 am

Yeah. I support complete reconstruction of the modern world. Nay, I demand a reconstruction.

Can I also be borne again? Please. Please? Not in the traditional Christian sense, or as in reincarnation, but normatively speaking.

Yes, of course you can.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:10 am

Rebecca Bryant on the essence of essentialism.

What gold is will depend on how we decide to define it.

Well if that is the case then you can take a lump of lead and define it as being within the canon of 'gold' . Job done!

All we know about the world and all we can ever know can never be more than a paradigm.

IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:19 am

. But no opportunity is ever missed to remind us of the breathtaking superiority of science compared to those alternatives.

What alternatives?

There is a huge difference between philosophy and what has been written about philosophy.

It is similar to the difference between physics and what has been written about physics... only more so.

What has been written about philosophy only scratches the surface.

"The point about scientism , so far as I understand it, is that, scientism claims that the scientific method underpins all of knowledge; and that this is in conflict with the received-view of popular philosophy and which is why it is so feared by received-view philosophers." Yeah, none of that is r...

No worries, Common: I think you and me are largely on the same page. "Qualia, by their very nature, cannot be measured." Yes, and the scientist therefore remains silent on them (while the philosopher writes books on them... :| ). The scientism-ist, on the other hand, proclaims 'science will crack t...

Non-scientism is a belief in magic! Scientism is not so much the belief that 'science will explain everything' as the belief that science can explain some things or perhaps most things or perhaps everything that is explicable. Well, you are free to define scientism as you wish, but as I said, I thi...

to believe the future will resemble the past because it has always been that way is a leap of faith -Imp To believe that the future will not resemble the past also requires a leap of faith. .... in any case it is not a requirement of a scientist to believe that the future will resemble the past.......

...presumably non-scientism is the belief that in order to explain everything supernatural causes must be invoked. It's a bit like theism and atheism. Non-scientism, I suppose, is simply the lack of belief that science will ultimately explain everything. I think most scientists would be surprised i...

Scientism is generally taken to be the belief that everything can be explained without supernatural causes. So then presumably non-scientism is the belief that in order to explain everything supernatural causes must be invoked. Yet supernatural things are those things that cannot be explained! Soun...

Like I say, Seagull, I blame it all on Crom, so that makes me Cromist (a believer in a brooding, indifferent, Prime Mover). Damn-sight better than bein' 'Scientism-ist'. Not really... your cromism is nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy... Science or scientism is based on logic and realit...

I used to say... On my good days, I'm agnostic; on my bad days, I'm an atheist. Nowadays: I blame it all on Crom. Pretty much, when it comes to God, I'm an apatheist or ignostic or disinterested potential deist or...*shrug* I'm not anti-god or -religion, but none of that's ever captured my interest...

"The difference between science and religion is the lack of deities or the supernatural." Ah, but we're not talkin' about science and religion; we're talkin' about scientism as religion. In context: science is your god. Really, what's the difference between, say, Allah-belief and Science-belief? In...

artisticsolution wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:47 am

'Will you marry me' is more romantic.

But "Hey Sheila... you awake?" is more common.