simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:26 am
As aptly demonstrated on a regular basis, science can contribute a great deal to the quality of our lives, but it doesn't mean they actually [really] understand what they're doing.
It is rather difficult to justify such a claim if you don't [really] understand what [real] understanding entails.
This sort of Philosophical garbage is always semantic and never pragmatic.
simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:26 amAs aptly demonstrated on a regular basis, science can contribute a great deal to the quality of our lives, but it doesn't mean they actually [really] understand what they're doing.
Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true in the future.
The difference between what is known to be true, and what is thought to be true is the difference between science and philosophy. For example, that the acceleration due to Earth's gravity is 9.8ms2 is known, because it has been measured many times. Some people, following Einstein, think that gravity is caused by the warping of space by matter. Other people have different ideas. You can attribute gravity to any cause you fancy, and if it is consistent with measurement, it could be true. But if you think g≠9.8ms2, you are simply wrong. What is thought to be true makes no difference to what is demonstrably true.
simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:26 am
As aptly demonstrated on a regular basis, science can contribute a great deal to the quality of our lives, but it doesn't mean they actually [really] understand what they're doing.
It is rather difficult to justify such a claim if you don't [really] understand what [real] understanding entails.
This sort of Philosophical garbage is always semantic and never pragmatic.
There should be a disclaimer on all of these sites that says something to the effect...
"If you don't yet understand that it's all bullshit, you probably should be spending more time thinking [about it] and less time wanking."
simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:26 amAs aptly demonstrated on a regular basis, science can contribute a great deal to the quality of our lives, but it doesn't mean they actually [really] understand what they're doing.
Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true in the future.
The difference between what is known to be true, and what is thought to be true is the difference between science and philosophy. For example, that the acceleration due to Earth's gravity is 9.8ms2 is known, because it has been measured many times. Some people, following Einstein, think that gravity is caused by the warping of space by matter. Other people have different ideas. You can attribute gravity to any cause you fancy, and if it is consistent with measurement, it could be true. But if you think g≠9.8ms2, you are simply wrong. What is thought to be true makes no difference to what is demonstrably true.
These things are true only until another system comes along and makes them untrue. Look throughout history at what was thought to be true. Remember, it wasn't so very long ago that physicians were drilling holes in people's heads to allow the evil spirits to escape!
You need to read up on the history of mankind and gain some perspective, a continuum of what was thought to be true throughout the ages. What you will learn is that our "truth" is just as silly as all preceding truth. It's just the way it is [for all kinds of reasons]
simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:21 pmThese things are true only until another system comes along and makes them untrue.
You can convert g=9.8ms2 into any system you like. Whatever units you use, it will not change the acceleration due to gravity. You can also attribute the force of gravity to anything that pleases you. That won't change how fast things fall either. Do you understand that there is a difference between measuring something, and explaining it?
simplicity wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:21 pm
These things are true only until another system comes along and makes them untrue. Look throughout history at what was thought to be true. Remember, it wasn't so very long ago that physicians were drilling holes in people's heads to allow the evil spirits to escape!
You need to read up on the history of mankind and gain some perspective, a continuum of what was thought to be true throughout the ages. What you will learn is that our "truth" is just as silly as all preceding truth. It's just the way it is [for all kinds of reasons]
You are mighty confused about the difference between fact and theory.
It is a fact THAT airplanes fly.
It is a theory WHY airplanes fly.
A new theory of flight falsifying an old theory of flight doesn't falsify the fact that airplanes fly.
I'm gonna say science can't kill philosophy because philosophy is actually about language analysis, despite what philosophers and metaphysicians and ontologists and the whole lot of em like to think.
With Wittgenstein I hold that philosophy explains nothing. Explanations belong to the natural sciences, and descriptive statements are either empirically verifiable or not. Philosophy's role, then, is to analyze language through the use of the tools of logic. This essentially amounts to examining language and spotting formal and informal fallacies that result from improper rule following in the grammar, semantics and syntax, more or less.
Think about it. Statements of fact about the world belong to the sciences, just like inferences, conjectures and theories. So then what makes a statement 'philosophical'? Again with Wittgenstein, it's when you send your language on vacation... when your language is doing no real work. Or, at best, when it's actively searching for nonsense through linguistic analysis. If it isn't doing this, your 'philosophy' is just poetry.
simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:24 am
What's bs is that folks believe they truly understand HOW it works.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 6:56 amOK, but understanding THAT it works is not bullshit.
As opposed to what?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 6:56 amAnd you are also failing to account for maker's knowledge. Everything I've ever invented I understand exactly HOW it works.
EVERYBODY throughout history thought they knew how it works [just like you do].
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 6:56 amBecause software/algorithms make the HOW explicit.
simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 11:49 pmEVERYBODY throughout history thought they knew how it works...
That is a cliché. This short passage, known as hypotheses non fingo, is the moment when people who claimed to know why things happen were no longer taken seriously by people who know how things happen.
But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypothesis. For whatever is not deduc'd from the phænomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view ... /NATP00056
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 7:17 pm
I'm gonna say science can't kill philosophy because philosophy is actually about language analysis, despite what philosophers and metaphysicians and ontologists and the whole lot of em like to think.
It's more than that, in fact, if I comprehend "philosophy" it's analysis of EVERYTHING (using language).
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 7:17 pmWith Wittgenstein I hold that philosophy explains nothing. Explanations belong to the natural sciences, and descriptive statements are either empirically verifiable or not. Philosophy's role, then, is to analyze language through the use of the tools of logic. This essentially amounts to examining language and spotting formal and informal fallacies that result from improper rule following in the grammar, semantics and syntax, more or less.
If that's what Wittgenstein has to say about Love of Wisdom, then thanks, certainly will not waste my time on that dude.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 7:17 pmThink about it. Statements of fact about the world belong to the sciences, just like inferences, conjectures and theories. So then what makes a statement 'philosophical'? Again with Wittgenstein, it's when you send your language on vacation... when your language is doing no real work. Or, at best, when it's actively searching for nonsense through linguistic analysis. If it isn't doing this, your 'philosophy' is just poetry.
As per my first statement, to me philosophy is analysing EVERYTHING, and of course, that includes language.
If statements of FACT belong to the sciences, then philosophy belongs as essential part of the sciences.