For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
"Scientists" of a certain kind, of course. But yes, that's so.
The supreme source of knowledge... for what?Jori wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:45 am Science can be defines as the an organized and dynamic body of knowledge which is a result of careful investigation, by means of careful observation, measurement, experimentation, examination of records, and surveys. While science is a result of careful investigation, philosophy is based on reasoning, and religion is based on faith. Does this make science the supreme source of knowledge?
No. Well all have personal knowledge that gets us through the day. But there is no doubt that if our beliefs could be tested scientifically we would find that we could believe nothing.Jori wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:45 am Science can be defines as the an organized and dynamic body of knowledge which is a result of careful investigation, by means of careful observation, measurement, experimentation, examination of records, and surveys. While science is a result of careful investigation, philosophy is based on reasoning, and religion is based on faith. Does this make science the supreme source of knowledge?
When it comes to the fundemental structure of the universe there are no answers to those questions simply bacause there are no reasons.
Science has not avoided that "uncomfortable" question and it pretty much already has the answer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:34 pm Or how about the question, "How can a mind be produced by a mere physical entity like the brain?" Or the question, "How can life have arisen from non-life?"
As far as the universal attraction of matter is concerned, it is perhaps the least interesting problem in physics for me. Matter deforms (relaxes?) the structure of physical space (aether) around it, which causes their mutual attraction - such as bubbles or fragments on the surface of water or as conductors carrying current in parallel (towards the future:) The question is how things are around antimatter…Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:44 amWhen it comes to the fundemental structure of the universe there are no answers to those questions simply bacause there are no reasons.
Why is every body in the universe attracted to every other body in the universe, which leads to the phenomenon of gravity??
WHilst science is the only discipline of knowledge capable of attempting that questions, and it has been asked by science despite your comments that it only addresses "comfortable" questions, scientists are smart enough to know that there are no reasons for that.
Why don't you be brave and try to answer some of those questions here on the Forum? Or are you content in your own comfort to avoid them?
What you will need to understand about science is that it's job is to intricately DESCRIBE the universe. It really has not interest in questions as to WHY.
If you want to know why, ask a priest. You can have a rainbow of all sorts of contradictory answers from different priests, immans and gurus that will be gushing with responses
Wow. I'm just astounded at how wrongly-informed...or perhaps just uninformed you are.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:46 amScience has not avoided that "uncomfortable" question and it pretty much already has the answer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:34 pm Or how about the question, "How can a mind be produced by a mere physical entity like the brain?" Or the question, "How can life have arisen from non-life?"
And you don't seem to mind flaunting it...wow.what you feel about it is not relevant to what I was saying.Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:02 pmAs far as the universal attraction of matter is concerned, it is perhaps the least interesting problem in physics for me. Matter deforms (relaxes?) the structure of physical space (aether) around it, which causes their mutual attraction - such as bubbles or fragments on the surface of water or as conductors carrying current in parallel (towards the future:) The question is how things are around antimatter…Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:44 amWhen it comes to the fundemental structure of the universe there are no answers to those questions simply bacause there are no reasons.
Why is every body in the universe attracted to every other body in the universe, which leads to the phenomenon of gravity??
WHilst science is the only discipline of knowledge capable of attempting that questions, and it has been asked by science despite your comments that it only addresses "comfortable" questions, scientists are smart enough to know that there are no reasons for that.
Why don't you be brave and try to answer some of those questions here on the Forum? Or are you content in your own comfort to avoid them?
What you will need to understand about science is that it's job is to intricately DESCRIBE the universe. It really has not interest in questions as to WHY.
If you want to know why, ask a priest. You can have a rainbow of all sorts of contradictory answers from different priests, immans and gurus that will be gushing with responses
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:54 pmWow. I'm just astounded at how wrongly-informed...or perhaps just uninformed you are.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:46 amScience has not avoided that "uncomfortable" question and it pretty much already has the answer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:34 pm Or how about the question, "How can a mind be produced by a mere physical entity like the brain?" Or the question, "How can life have arisen from non-life?"
Sorry; you're just dead wrong again. Go read any journal on the subject, and you'll find out you're wrong.
I'm sorry I missed this discussion earlier. I have to say, I am in total agreement with every one of your responses on this thread. Perhaps best summed up by, "It does not change the fact that there are no explanations, there are just more intricate descriptions. My own view is that science has no interest, as science, in why anything is what it is or does what it does (as if reality were contingent on something else (sky daddy?)--as the mystics on this thread like IC contend), science only seeks to identify what things actually are and what they actually do, NOT WHY.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:31 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:54 pmWow. I'm just astounded at how wrongly-informed...or perhaps just uninformed you are.
Sorry; you're just dead wrong again. Go read any journal on the subject, and you'll find out you're wrong.
I'm not going to take refelctions from a moron who thinks a sky daddy is the answer to everything.
Indeed. Thanks for the support.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:33 pmI'm sorry I missed this discussion earlier. I have to say, I am in total agreement with every one of your responses on this thread. Perhaps best summed up by, "It does not change the fact that there are no explanations, there are just more intricate descriptions. My own view is that science has no interest, as science, in why anything is what it is or does what it does (as if reality were contingent on something else (sky daddy?)--as the mystics on this thread like IC contend), science only seeks to identify what things actually are and what they actually do, NOT WHY.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:31 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:54 pm
Wow. I'm just astounded at how wrongly-informed...or perhaps just uninformed you are.
Sorry; you're just dead wrong again. Go read any journal on the subject, and you'll find out you're wrong.
I'm not going to take refelctions from a moron who thinks a sky daddy is the answer to everything.
Since we're both instructed the only place to find the truth is in some journal, I guess we'll both be sent to our rooms to read some.