what if our current views are wrong?

[Chas]

(31-01-2013 07:15 PM)Scientia Wrote:  

(31-01-2013 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again, you prove nothing. You have no objective measure of that.

Besides, the brain can compensate for small injuries.

No,now you are back peddling. You objected to my position that all brain injuries dose not equate to mental impairment. I had a concussion which is a brain injury. According to you and Fstratzero I should have signs of mental impairment. Like in the video he offered as proof to all brain injuries.

Actually, I said "sufficiently damaged".

[Scientia]

(31-01-2013 09:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(31-01-2013 08:34 PM)Scientia Wrote:  If you change the word theory with philosophy in that paragraph. I think it would fit more correctly.

I have no problem in doing that since I've seen both words being used. Also, it doesn't change what it deals with.

[Scientia]

(01-02-2013 01:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(31-01-2013 07:15 PM)Scientia Wrote:  Actually, I said "sufficiently damaged".

My apologies then, I misunderstood you. I don't really doubt most of what you are saying, I just can't use a blanket approach when dealing with something that we don't fully understand how it works.

[Vosur]

Ahem, I reiterate:

(31-01-2013 06:32 PM)Vosur Wrote:  "You show me that it works and how it works and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve 'fancy that' on the side of my cock."
-Tim Minchin, Storm

[ClydeLee]

(01-02-2013 03:35 AM)Scientia Wrote:  I have no problem in doing that since I've seen both words being used. Also, it doesn't change what it deals with.

I didn't know metaphysics was one set idea... after all, then what is THE theory of metaphysics if it is in indeed a theory, not a philosophy that covers various schools of thought.

[fstratzero]

(01-02-2013 08:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:35 AM)Scientia Wrote:  I have no problem in doing that since I've seen both words being used. Also, it doesn't change what it deals with.

I didn't know metaphysics was one set idea... after all, then what is THE theory of metaphysics if it is in indeed a theory, not a philosophy that covers various schools of thought.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

[Scientia]

(01-02-2013 08:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:35 AM)Scientia Wrote:  I have no problem in doing that since I've seen both words being used. Also, it doesn't change what it deals with.

I didn't know metaphysics was one set idea... after all, then what is THE theory of metaphysics if it is in indeed a theory, not a philosophy that covers various schools of thought.

Metaphysics is notoriously hard to define. Also, why are you calling it a theory when you just suggested it be called a philosophy? Once again, I've seen both words used with it.

meta·phys·ics
noun plural but singular in construction \-ˈfi-ziks\

Definition of METAPHYSICS

1 a (1) :
a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature
of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often
epistemology (2) : ontology 2

Quote:Metaphysics vs. Physics



The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas
physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex
concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of
fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract objects are the
objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework.
For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use
the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we
can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways. It
is part of our understanding of science that natural laws
exist (even if no one were around to discover them)

http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html

Quote:I have been rather remiss, I feel, in promoting some mutual scrutiny between our n-categorical community and that part of the metaphysics community which interests itself in structuralism. Since I heard in the mid-1990s about the metaphysical theory of structural realism put forward by various philosophers of physics,

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011...hysic.html

Is it your intent to be pedantic?

[Scientia]

(01-02-2013 01:58 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 08:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I didn't know metaphysics was one set idea... after all, then what is THE theory of metaphysics if it is in indeed a theory, not a philosophy that covers various schools of thought.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What are you saying "no" to?

[Bucky Ball]

Metaphysics is ancient woo woo, cooked up by people who didn't know how the world works. There is evidence for none of it.
We now know, fairly precisely, how the brain works, on a molecular level.
The head of Roche Pharmaceuticals (Europe) was on TV today explining how THAT knowledge is helping with brain pharmacy improvements. There is NOTHING "metaphysical" about that. Metaphysics is mired in the past , in a pre-scientific age. It's ancient woo woo, to explain crap, before science explained things. It's quackery, at it's best. It's outdated, and 100 % useless. The are better explanations for everything. It's the study of magic. I am shocked it even allowed in credentialed universities anymore.

[Chas]

(01-02-2013 07:31 PM)Scientia Wrote:  Is it your intent to be pedantic?

Why, yes. Yes it is.


Get used to it.