theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:49 pm
theory wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Science is based on a magical belief or dogma that the facts of science are valid
without philosophy.
I am not, yet, sure how you do 'science', or what 'science' is to you exactly, but what I think you will find is that most people will strongly disagree with you here on what 'science' is based on, exactly.
Perspectives on philosophy relative to science by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University provide an example:
Those human beings who call "themselves", "scientists", or who are called "scientists", by "others", will say just about ANY thing if they think or BELIEVE that it will make them appear smarter or more clever to "others". Just like those who call "themselves", "philosophers", or who are called "philosophers", by "others", will say just about ANY thing if they think or BELIEVE that it will make them appear smarter or more clever, to "others".
So, ALL of the examples below are just moot.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Philosophy is bunk.
It could be said, 'science is bunk'. But, just like, above it REALLY says and means absolutely NOTHING at all.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am…
You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
The reason WHY "scientists" avoid the use of, or the word, 'truth' is NOT because they are humble human beings but because science has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with 'truth'. Once thee Truth of some 'thing' is found/uncovered, then there is NOTHING more for science, nor "scientists" to do.
The rest of the immaturity I could not even be bothered responding to.
But what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that the way 'debating' has been taught, and followed, it has completely and utterly DESTROYED human beings Truly natural tendency.
If ANY one is Truly CURIOS and INTERESTED, then ALL can be explained, and UNDERSTOOD.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am…
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn’t even consistent. You can’t build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
…
Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.
…
Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.
…
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it’s what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
…
Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?
As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.
AND, what can be CLEARLY SEEN, from the perspective of some "philosophers" is the EXACT SAME about science and "scientists". So, the IMMATURE games continue.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy,
Is that the 'love of wisdom/becoming wiser' philosophy, or some OTHER philosophy, which you are talking about and referring to here?
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it apparently is not.
It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without ‘morality’).
The idea that facts are valid
without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.
(2018)
Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
My argument is that it may be of importance in the face of human prosperity and survival that the human learns to properly recognize, understand or merely 'plausibly consider' meaningful experience and intelligence in whales and dolphins.
I have asked you this before, and I will ask you again now, WHY only whales and dolphins? Why not ANY other animal?
Also, you could make argument that is MAY BE of importance in the face of human prosperity and survival that 'you', human beings, learn to properly recognize, understand, or merely 'plausibly consider' MANY other things, AS WELL.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
This would not need to have anything to do with love or emotions with regard whales and dolphins.
We WERE talking about 'dedication'. So, changing 'it' now to 'human prosperity and survival' is just an attempt at deception.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Philosophy of whale and dolphin (intelligence) may be a subject that could be of great importance for the evolution of human intelligence and perhaps more.
Okay, if you say so.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Orcas have 'more gray matter' or cortical neurons than humans
Considering the size of this animal, this seems perfectly reasonable.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
and a brain structure that presumably enables them to process much more information faster than a human brain can.
Who PRESUMES this.
And, I suggest NEVER presuming ANY thing, like this, BEFORE gaining True and FULL CLARITY, FIRST.
That way one can NOT get led astray so quickly and easily. Also, this will PREVENT 'bias confirmation' settling in.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
At question would be: what would an orca do with such 'brain technology'?
THE answer is, an orca will do whatever orcas do.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
When an orca looks at a human with a more comprehensive 'conscious experience', what would that be like?
What happened to the 'IF', FIRST?
Or, is the PRESUMPTION that an orca WILL look at human beings with a MORE comprehensive 'conscious experience' effecting the way you are LOOKING AT and SEEING things here?
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
Can an orca with the right education and cultural upbringing be made to perform in science or philosophy?
What???
Do you KNOW what 'it' IS, which separates human beings from EVERY other animal on earth?
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
When you meet a feral child, he/she may look dumb.
LOL EVERY child I have met, and observed, "feral" or not, look far more intelligent, and ARE far more intelligent, than ALL of the adults I have meet, and observed.
And, "feral" children, to me, appear to use far more intelligence than of those at the same age.
If, "feral" children may look "dumb" to you, then so be it. But we ALL do NOT see what you see.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
If you perform scientific tests to measure its intelligence the IQ score may be 10.
And, the score may ALSO be 1, 2, 3, 4, or ANY number up to the highest score possible.
theory wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:54 am
With decades of education and high quality upbringing however, such a human being could perform on the level of an academic.
What you are 'trying to' argue for here can be stated much SIMPLER and much EASIER by just saying, We can PROVE this absolutely True when we can "time-travel" and we go back in time to ANY period when human beings existed, bring a pregnant mother forward to ANY period of "time", and when the baby is born, then they will learn the "rules", language, and customs/culture of these people, in that period.
To PROVE this True, in the days when this is being written, then just bring ANY new born human baby to absolutely ANY culture or country, on earth, and that baby will learn the "rules", language, and customs of the culture.
There, solved AND proved.