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
11-03-2011, 08:55 AM
 
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(10-03-2011 01:07 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  And, science does not???

Not really no. Science doesn't tackle questions like, "Do we have a soul?" Does God exist?", and etc. Science only deals with the observable and testable, and does not bother what it cannot test or observe.
Quote: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.

Philosophically, what is 2+2?


Quote: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.

I said rigorous definition. It is term often used in mathematics to attribute a definition that is especially exact and very thorough in its explanation. Typically, a "rigorous", mathematical definition does away with any and all vagueness, and only uses logic.

I've never claimed for science to be philosophical. And the scientific method has a rigorous definition because it can be explained very well... Like this: "A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data." It is very non-vague.

But don't get the conception that philosophy isn't rigorous, quite the opposite. Philosophy involves the most intense of scrutiny of a near mathematical precision. Philosophers may not be able to write worth a damn, but most are concerned with having clearcut and explicit means to base things such as morality. We try to eliminate the gray area.

Quote: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.

All of which is easily explained through the scientific method's rigorous discussion.
Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2011, 05:13 PM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  
(10-03-2011 01:07 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  And, science does not???
Not really no. Science doesn't tackle questions like, "Do we have a soul?" Does God exist?", and etc. Science only deals with the observable and testable, and does not bother what it cannot test or observe.
Sure, science can offer a responsible answer - no evidence at this time indicates a confirmation of the beliefs. Too much of the atheist compromises with theists for you - your mind has been corrupted, and it is the fault of atheists perpetuating the compromised ideas about science in order to make friends with the theists, because they have more money then the atheists, and the atheists need money for their organizations, such as the Secular Humanists.
(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  
(10-03-2011 01:07 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  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.
Philosophically, what is 2+2?
4 - the agreed upon meaning of the mathematical system. Mathematic symbols are of human invention, even if mathematics is not. And the answer, four, maintains a level of philosophical inquiry although we all agree to its quality describing a quantity.
(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  
(10-03-2011 01:07 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  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.
]I said rigorous definition. It is term often used in mathematics to attribute a definition that is especially exact and very thorough in its explanation. Typically, a "rigorous", mathematical definition does away with any and all vagueness, and only uses logic.
I have to think about this, because I have had some previous discussions with philosophy-types about what is logic: logic as the study of inference, or logic as being the same as reasoning? Usually the philosophy-types insist that logic is the study of inference and that using logic as a substitute for reasoning is frowned upon.

(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  I've never claimed for science to be philosophical. And the scientific method has a rigorous definition because it can be explained very well... Like this: "A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data." It is very non-vague.
What is not natural, anything that humans devise???

Come on, your definition there does not define any particular method - it is still open as to what method is used to discovering knowledge.

(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  But don't get the conception that philosophy isn't rigorous, quite the opposite. Philosophy involves the most intense of scrutiny of a near mathematical precision. Philosophers may not be able to write worth a damn, but most are concerned with having clearcut and explicit means to base things such as morality. We try to eliminate the gray area.

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
13-03-2011, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2011 10:10 AM by TrainWreck.)
I woke this morning contemplating this dilemma
I decided that if people were aware of the classification system of questions that can be asked about any given phenomenon, that that would be beneficial to humanity.

Scientific: What is the description of the system and components? Which has a correlated question, what of the system's environment can be manipulated and what are the resulting events?

Technographic: How can the system be used?

Ideological: What technology affects the system?

Personal: What do you think, is there anything out there like this? There's got to be something in the ancient Greek texts similar to this, if not more complete? Please don't tell me the theists have a list, already - it has to be faulty.

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
13-03-2011, 11:25 AM
 
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
@Train Wreck:

This is devolving into one of the most ridiculous threads I have read on here in a while.

Quote:your mind has been corrupted, and it is the fault of atheists perpetuating the compromised ideas about science in order to make friends with the theists, because they have more money then the atheists, and the atheists need money for their organizations, such as the Secular Humanists.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!? You are going to sit here on an Atheist message board and make that absolutely baseless claim?

You, sir, are ridiculous.

Compromised ideas about science? It seems to me after reading this ENTIRE thread, that the one here with compromised ideas is YOU. You are the one mixing up philosophical and scientific definitions. I may not be the most learned person on this message board, but even I see that you are dead wrong in about half of your posts on this thread.
Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2011, 12:45 PM
 
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(11-03-2011 05:13 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Sure, science can offer a responsible answer - no evidence at this time indicates a confirmation of the beliefs. Too much of the atheist compromises with theists for you - your mind has been corrupted, and it is the fault of atheists perpetuating the compromised ideas about science in order to make friends with the theists, because they have more money then the atheists, and the atheists need money for their organizations, such as the Secular Humanists.

Correct, my mind has been corrupted and tainted by logic and reason. Now I must ask why and what and how. I must know the answers to things, and I must know that they are true.
---
So you're claiming that atheists are actually more poor than theists, and that the secular humanists (which isn't a group, it is a type of philosophy) are poor and a group of all atheists are behind some master scheme... Sir, we're not a group or an organization. Atheists can be socialists or communists or republican or democrat, we aren't organized in the least bit.

It may seem like we're science advocates, but that is only because a lot of us have a genuine interest in science. I'll be a scientist myself when I graduate from college.

Quote:4 - the agreed upon meaning of the mathematical system. Mathematic symbols are of human invention, even if mathematics is not. And the answer, four, maintains a level of philosophical inquiry although we all agree to its quality describing a quantity.

You should probably look up some mathematics and even some basic number theory. It would do you well. Trust me, they steer far away from any sort of semantics. You want to know what two is? It's 1 + 1. Two of something means that you have one, and you have another one of that. So if you have 2 + 2. You have one of 2 and another of 2, so you get what we call 4 of 1.

Mathematics is a language, but quit playing semantics.

Quote:I have to think about this, because I have had some previous discussions with philosophy-types about what is logic: logic as the study of inference, or logic as being the same as reasoning? Usually the philosophy-types insist that logic is the study of inference and that using logic as a substitute for reasoning is frowned upon.

Logic - the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.
Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2011, 03:16 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2011 03:20 PM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
(11-03-2011 05:13 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(11-03-2011 08:55 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Philosophically, what is 2+2?
4 - the agreed upon meaning of the mathematical system. Mathematic symbols are of human invention, even if mathematics is not. And the answer, four, maintains a level of philosophical inquiry although we all agree to its quality describing a quantity.

As with your previous statement I want you to understand the difference between linguistics and philosophy. When you're discussing meanings behind words you fall into the field of linguistics. Though of course linguistics would look deeper than this. Philosophy is not a field that tries to disprove mathematics, they were derived near the same time. Philosophy is the field of rationality and logic that finds answers to questions of human creation.

Mathematics is a hard science, wherein no matter what terms you use for the numbers you get the same result Y+Y=X is the same as 2+2=4 they have nowhere close to the same etymology but the mathematical concept is the same. Math isn't about what symbol you use but the basic principles.

Philosophy is about ideas, there are questions we pose that go beyond hard answers. Some things we want to know are not concretely understandable. What is ethics? Saying that it's a human creation to aid in social behavior isn't wrong, but it doesn't really explain much of the question. Only through deliberation in logic and reason which are the best tools (we have) for internal questions can we find even slightly better answers. Questions of the mind are not "hard" because there is no solid form to them.

Being happy is an ideal, smiling is something visibly verifiable. So in a hard science way you could state that smiling denotes that someone is happy, but you'd be incorrect. People can smile when not happy and be happy when not smiling. We know this but it doesn't exactly create objective proof.

Philosophy does not really find dogmatic principles that have no way of being refuted, but this is because ideas are not verifiable. If we didn't have philosophy then the world would be a lot less off. Aristotle explained to everyone the need for mastery in a skill, and moderation. Kant explained to people that other people aren't supposed to be your tools. Bentham explained that if you do something to benefit only a small number then there is little good that comes out of the consequences. These things are not always followed but they are good to know.

Many philosophies become short phrases that people carry with them, but right and wrong is an ideal. Without having an understanding of what they are you're not saying anything. Religious books are philosophies because they attach meanings to ideas. They are not objective proof because without using the words in them you won't come to the same conclusions.

If a philosophy such as atomos is found to have a "hard" answer then it becomes something besides a philosophy. But that does not mean there aren't millions of questions which people care deeply about that don't have hard answers. Which is why they stated don't bother finding an answer. Evolution has "hard" evidence so it does not need a philosophical answer. I was just playing along because sometimes it's fun to try.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2011, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2011 10:47 AM by TrainWreck.)
DERAIL to New Discussion
(13-03-2011 11:25 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  @Train Wreck:

This is devolving into one of the most ridiculous threads I have read on here in a while. . .

. . .You, sir, are ridiculous. . .

Compromised ideas about science? It seems to me after reading this ENTIRE thread, that the one here with compromised ideas is YOU. You are the one mixing up philosophical and scientific definitions. I may not be the most learned person on this message board, but even I see that you are dead wrong in about half of your posts on this thread.

This is a new topic that needs to be discussed.

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
14-03-2011, 11:19 AM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
If you want to discuss it make a thread Trainwreck. No sense telling Soldieringon to do it for you. He was just making his statement clear, and while a bit volatile he made his point. We don't really mind that the original topic has been lost a while back.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2011, 11:51 AM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
I messed-up. I meant to link to the thread I started:

http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/show...0#pid23320

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
03-05-2011, 06:24 AM
RE: Philosophically, why are human's able to understand the world around us?
If you gave other animals thumbs then I'm sure we wouldn't be the only one building tools and structures anymore after a while. That caused evolution to take over and we used our brain more then other animals so we became more intelligent and now were here. This is my opinion and not a fact for now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: