uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amThe point is the best Hawking's in his state could do was to focus his limited resources to Physics.
That's just silly.
Nope! Why?
Hawking was assuming the ultimate of Philosophy's quest is that of Substance Theory'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
and Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
thus his counter with his Model Dependent Realism.
It is also a fact that in his physical state his resources are limited thus confined to specialty, i.e. Physics.
If you are familiar with the process of getting a PhD, where one must confined oneself to a very specific field of knowledge and very narrow Statement of Problem to enable one to be effective to concludes one's thesis.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am'Story' is your call, not mine.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it must always be qualified to a specific model [note MDR above] or framework of knowledge.
As Popper asserted, the best truths we have at present, i.e. scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
It's just different words for the same thing. Call it a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm it is fictional; like a story.
The term 'story' is generally for reference to
1. -an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.
A model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm can be both for real or fictional things, but in this case, the reference is to real things only.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amParmenides and Descartes did make claims of truths but their truths are never 'absolute' but are
dependent on the specific model of knowledge they construct and
depend upon. "Dependent" = never absolutely absolute.
They both made observations which are true regardless of any model of knowledge. Parmenides pointed out that something exists, which cannot be stated without it being true. Descartes pointed out that thinking exists, which cannot be thought without it being true.
I agree it can be "true regardless of any model of knowledge."
But truths are subject to degree of veracity conditioned upon the specific framework.
The 'truths' re God's existence and his works claimed from a theological framework will have 0.001 degree of veracity in relation to empirical justification and reality. [if you are non-theistic and rational you'll agree.]
Meanwhile truths [merely polished conjectures] from the Scientific Framework can be rated as say 80/100 as the most credible truths at present as the standard.
I would rate Parmenides' truth at say 50/100 since it is empirically based, but Descartes' 'I AM' as real constitutionally would be a 0.01 truth.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amUnfortunately with philosophy-proper the majority >95% of people [beginners] do not have sufficient competence to execute philosophy-proper, thus there is a need to expedite its activeness within the masses.
Do you think that will change what people believe?
There is a difference between knowing and doing.
As I had stated the function of philosophy covers knowing [1] and doing the right thing [2].
Thus if we can expedite the knowing [beliefs] in the masses, then they can be guided with such knowledge to do the right actions to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] and thus contribute to that of humanity.
Note the extensive exposure of knowledge re climate change, on LGBTQ, health issues, slavery, wars, etc. had contributed to changing people's beliefs and action. So the extensive exposure re philosophy-proper [as rational and productive with net positivity] will likely change people's beliefs.