Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

[TimeSeeker]

Thought existed before language ever did because it is more primitive and less complex

Do you have a conception of 'thought' that is not based on language? All you have offered so far is "conception is another word for thought". This is equivocation.

To then say that conception of language is based on language itself is demonstrably false
Conception is another word for thought so to initially conceive of a language does not imply actual language

You know when I said you are making the circle bigger? This is exactly it! Illusion.

So I am going to short-circuit your argument like this: You have no conception of conception.
Therefore you have no conception of thought. Therefore you have no conception of language that is not linguistic.

Logocentrism

Language is either written or spoken but conception or thought is neither of these because it is much simpler

Yes. That is how language is USED! Not how language is CREATED.

You can conceive the beginning of a new language in your mind without actually writing it down or saying it out loud

You can't conceive how language is created until you can conceive conception.

This is awesome! Langage is circular (which is not news to me)

But the question of how do you 'conceptualise conception' leads to.... creation

[TimeSeeker]

Science is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else.

Really? What about the dissemination of said studies USING language?

And therefore has nothing to say about the ontological
nature of reality. It has nothing to say about reality full stop. ONLY observable phenomena [ the two are not the same ]

If science has nothing to say about the ontological then who does? Philosophers?

How do you SAY anything about ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?

You've made the circle so big that you can't see your own circular reasoning

[surreptitious57]

How do you SAY anything about the ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?

Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is

[TimeSeeker]

Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories

Can you really say that about quantum physics?

Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is

OK, but I am asking: if neither science nor philosophy is focusing on ontology then who is? And more importantly - what is ontology then?

[surreptitious57]

How do you SAY anything about the ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?

Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is

OK but I am asking: if neither science nor philosophy is focusing on ontology then who is?

Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered

[TimeSeeker]

Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered

Lets not answer "all" questions. Lets start baby steps and answer one question.

What are the building blocks (atomics) of ontological reality?

Do you think physics or philosophy can provide a definite answer here?
Who can describe the building blocks better?

[surreptitious57]

Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories

Can you really say that about quantum physics

Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one

[TimeSeeker]

Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one

Ok, but you ARE dodging the question.

What are the building blocks of ontological reality? Quarks and leptons! What are they like (not even going to bother with the mathematics).

I don't see any philosophy here - only quantum physics.

What does philosophy have to say on the matter, and more importantly - in what language is Philosophy going to say it?

[surreptitious57]

Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered

Do you think physics or philosophy can provide a definite answer here?
Who can describe the building blocks better?

I do not think that a definite answer to reality can be provided by physics or philosophy
Physics is inductive and philosophy is comparatively less rigorous so both are inadequate

But the scientific method is the most brutal methodology ever devised so if I had to choose one it would be physics

[TimeSeeker]

I do not think that a definite answer to reality can be provided by physics or philosophy
Physics is inductive and philosophy is comparatively less rigorous so both are inadequate

This is the fallacy of gray. You don't have a perfect answer so you say nothing.

I am not asking for a perfect answer. Best guess will do just fine.

But the scientific method is the most brutal methodology ever devised so if I had to choose one it would be physics

So philosophy has nothing to say about ontology?

[surreptitious57]

Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one

What are the building blocks of ontological reality? Quarks and leptons! What are they like ( not even going to bother with the mathematics )
What does philosophy have to say on the matter and more importantly - in what language is Philosophy going to say it?

The building blocks of physical reality are electrons and quarks as both are regarded as fundamental particles
There are also strings and quantum foam as well as the missing piece of the puzzle namely quantum gravity

Philosophy can say whatever it wants to but it will lack the rigour of physics
There will be multiple interpretations of what this reality is supposed to be

[surreptitious57]

I am not asking for a perfect answer. Best guess will do just fine

You asked about a definite answer which I could not give
And I do not make predictions for rather obvious reasons

[TimeSeeker]

Philosophy can say whatever it wants to but it will lack the rigour of physics
There will be multiple interpretations of what this reality is supposed to be

OK, but the output of rigour (after all the empiricism, validation, reproduction etc.) is nothing more than valid Mathematical equations.

That IS what physics says. If you were expecting an English answer.... that's a shame

Which is my point about logocentrism. if you are going to be saying stuff about reality. You need a language that matches it more closely than English.

[surreptitious57]

I prefer not knowing to filling any gaps in knowledge with untested speculation
I can wait the rest of my life to discover nothing new and so I am not bothered

[TimeSeeker]

I prefer not knowing to filling any gaps in knowledge with untested speculation
I can wait the rest of my life to discover nothing new and so I am not bothered

That's a rather consumerist perspective. I prefer to create knowledge.

Just as soon as I figure out what it is.