Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2011, 04:20 PM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(03-03-2011 03:01 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Adding philosophically to the beginning of a question does not mean it warrants any type of special response, it just means you don't know what types of questions are philosophical or not.
So do you have a list of the classifications of questions?

I'll bet that all formulations of questions can be investigated from a scientific perspective; including, "non-sense." And it would seem to me that 'understanding,' as the question terms, requires the generation of thought regulated by social norms, which inherits ideology, and therefore the perspective of philosophical inquiry is justified.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2011, 01:51 PM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(03-03-2011 03:01 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  I just thought of something to show how silly this question is.

Philosophically, why is the Earth spherical?
Because, those of us of the English speaking Western society agree that at the least, that the word, "sphere," represents something, and we can add the suffix -ic to indicate that an object of discussion resembles that which is agreed upon in the semantic system.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2011, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2011 04:10 PM by No J..)
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(05-03-2011 01:51 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-03-2011 03:01 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Philosophically, why is the Earth spherical?
Because, those of us of the English speaking Western society agree that at the least, that the word, "sphere," represents something, and we can add the suffix -ic to indicate that an object of discussion resembles that which is agreed upon in the semantic system.
That is not an answer that has anything to do with philosophy. That answer has to do with the use of a certain word in the English language. The question still remains unanswered.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2011 10:22 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(05-03-2011 04:06 PM)No J. Wrote:  That is not an answer that has anything to do with philosophy. That answer has to do with the use of a certain word in the English language. The question still remains unanswered.
It is so irritating that I punish myself in the vacuous community of internet discussion forums when, obviously, I know better.

I guarantee that I am correct, and that you are erroneous, probably based on your poor assumption of believing that your personal sense of knowledge as being complete and accurate - you do not know what it is you are looking for. Where as, I fancy myself, claiming to be the foremost authority on knowledge classification. I have map and list renditions of the general layout of knowledge, as can be reviewed at the website sited in my signature. Do you have anything like that to establish your credentials for understanding knowledge?

The systems of natural languages cannot be elevated beyond the errors of the ideologies that comprise their semantic systems. And these natural languages are the extent of the general communication of ideas. Numbers are probably the closest to the ideal you are looking for, and the mathematical formula of a sphere is not apart of the question.

Now I agree, that there may not be much to ponder about the question, or the answer that I provided in comparison to the scientific explanation that can be put forth; but it all comes back to the accusation that you do not like the answer because you do not know what you are looking for, because you do not understand the layout of knowledge to begin with.

Do you have any ideas on how you are going to settle this dispute? Does it mean that much to you to prove that you are smarter than me? Or, are you willing to cease your dissemination of faulty information for the sake of humanity?

What exactly are you doing to make this a better world - what are your credentials, and what does society pay you to do?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 12:57 PM
 
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(03-03-2011 04:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-03-2011 03:01 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Adding philosophically to the beginning of a question does not mean it warrants any type of special response, it just means you don't know what types of questions are philosophical or not.
So do you have a list of the classifications of questions?

I'll bet that all formulations of questions can be investigated from a scientific perspective; including, "non-sense." And it would seem to me that 'understanding,' as the question terms, requires the generation of thought regulated by social norms, which inherits ideology, and therefore the perspective of philosophical inquiry is justified.

Philosophy and science used to be one in the same, but they diverged long ago. Philosophy tackles fundamental problems and questions with rational sense.

If you view the question in a linguistic sense, yes, you can pull out a philosophical response. But you could also do that with any question that has ever been asked. It also doesn't deal with the question, but only the nature of the question. If I were to ask, "Why is the sky blue?" and you answered, "Because we assign blue to a certain wavelength of light that you see." It answers the question, but in a rather snobbish and smart ass way.

I was not asking why do I use the word blue, I was asking why the sky shows that particular wavelength of light. The same with the spherical, the question is asking why the Earth is in the shape of this concept that we call a sphere.

Philosophically, what is the scientific method?

This question again is moot. The scientific method has a very rigorous definition.

Philosophically, why use the scientific method?

This question actually is philosophical in nature because it is a fundamental question, however, if we were to remove the first word, the meaning and answer will remain the same:

Why use the scientific method?
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 06:31 PM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(06-03-2011 10:17 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Do you have any ideas on how you are going to settle this dispute?
I don't have a dispute. I just pointed out one fact.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2011, 08:40 PM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
Saw this question late ...

This isn't a philosophical question.All animals observe and react to the world around them no matter how simple or complex.
We humans are the only animal that dared to use fire as a tool millions of years ago -> that shaped our evolution , created larger brains and those larger brains observe complexity and detail in the world around them.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2011, 01:07 PM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2011 01:25 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(06-03-2011 12:57 PM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Philosophy and science used to be one in the same, but they diverged long ago. Philosophy tackles fundamental problems and questions with rational sense.
And, science does not???

(06-03-2011 12:57 PM)Sacrieur Wrote:  If you view the question in a linguistic sense, yes, you can pull out a philosophical response. But you could also do that with any question that has ever been asked. It also doesn't deal with the question, but only the nature of the question. If I were to ask, "Why is the sky blue?" and you answered, "Because we assign blue to a certain wavelength of light that you see." It answers the question, but in a rather snobbish and smart ass way.
Perhaps. I am inclined to agree with you, but then it poses that we should then be able to answer the original question, but comments have been made to the opposite - that the question is other than philosophical perspective, and can only be answered by biological inferences.

(06-03-2011 12:57 PM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Philosophically, what is the scientific method?

This question again is moot. The scientific method has a very rigorous definition.

Philosophically, why use the scientific method?

This question actually is philosophical in nature because it is a fundamental question, however, if we were to remove the first word, the meaning and answer will remain the same:

Why use the scientific method?
Claiming something to be, "rigorous," yet "philosophical," seems contradictory. The only thing that seems rigorous about the scientific method is the peer review process, other than that the observation and analysis processes appear to be variable, if not incorporating emerging methods of experiments. Which leads back to the peer review.

So, hopefully, we can establish what might be the order of inquiry - technographic information about a system (scientific data) reduces philosophical perspective/inquiry to that of linguistic, or semantics.
(06-03-2011 08:40 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  This isn't a philosophical question. All animals observe and react to the world around them no matter how simple or complex.
We humans are the only animal that dared to use fire as a tool millions of years ago -> that shaped our evolution , created larger brains and those larger brains observe complexity and detail in the world around them.
And you think your analysis is scientific, and not inclined to philosophical???

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2011, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2011 12:39 AM by daemonowner.)
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(26-12-2010 11:07 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  A lone human, with no education, and no tools can not survive in a battle with a dolphin.

Apples and oranges. If A human were to battle a dolphin on land, the human would win In water, the bigger concern for the human would be how to get out of the water.
(27-02-2011 01:38 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  How do you guys feel about the anthropic principle? It would answer this thread's question by stating that humans are able to analyze the world around them because if we couldn't, then we wouldn't be able to ask the question why in the first place.

I agree with the usage.

(27-02-2011 01:38 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  It seems like a pretty convenient answer to these "why are we so special" questions, but most scientists reject it simply because it isn't satisfying enough.

Its a damn good thing too. Science searches for knowledge, and while the anthropic principle is a satisfactory answer, science can still learn a whole lot more.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2011, 08:41 AM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(11-03-2011 12:28 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  
(26-12-2010 11:07 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  A lone human, with no education, and no tools can not survive in a battle with a dolphin.
Apples and oranges. If A human were to battle a dolphin on land, the human would win In water, the bigger concern for the human would be how to get out of the water.
Outstanding Argument of the Week - you are a winner!
(11-03-2011 12:28 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  
(27-02-2011 01:38 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  It seems like a pretty convenient answer to these "why are we so special" questions, but most scientists reject it simply because it isn't satisfying enough.
Its a damn good thing too. Science searches for knowledge, and while the anthropic principle is a satisfactory answer, science can still learn a whole lot more.
And they're doing such a good job of it . . .
I would make it a responsibility of science to disseminate the gained knowledge to the community, or else we atheists loose our footing on the argument that the Christian Church is to blame for all that ails humanity - wouldn't you agree?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: