|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Could you post the details of the 3 errors,please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Joralex,
Post 9, pls. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
NosyNed Anything for a fellow Canuck.
(1) "Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless to deal with reality. We could not feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives."The most obvious contradiction of this statement is animals themselves who, without the benefit of metaphysics, deal with reality far better than we do.They both feed themselves and act to preserve their lives.Since we are animals ourselves we too are fully capable of operating without a working philosophy and,indeed did just so for a lot of our history. (2)The next one is from Existence Exists."The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists" The fact that one is aware of something is not even PROOF that one is aware of something.It is an agreed upon assumption for the most part as a basis for a starting point to see if anything can be further deduced.What exactly existence is is only found in the minds of egotistical philosophers.There is no guarantee that our science can descibe everything and that even through the proper use of logical construction that everything can be understood. (3)In questions and answers /Questions from a relativist there is a highlight on the word skepticism which leads to this gem of clarity. "For example, inductive skepticism claims that induction does not bestow true knowledge. They claim that if you have seen 100 sheep, and they all had ears, you are unjustified in claiming "All sheep have ears" because somewhere out there might be a sheep without ears. Even if you have analyzed all sheep that you can find, there might be another somewhere. Skeptics will claim that only knowledge gained through deduction from known facts is knowledge." If you wish I will point out the problem with this statement but I need to run some errands for the wife and I have no doubt whatsoever that SHE exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you sidelined.
It does seem awfully light weight. It is touching on the kind of points that we need in our metaphysic which underlies the scientific process and way of thinking. We assume a reality. That is metaphysical isn't it? We demand a reproducible, not random behaviors. What else is there? This has been thrased out by experts a bunch of times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I have to say I am uncertain that any particular metaphysic acts as an underpinning for science, much less evolutionary theory.
As far as I understand it, "naturalism" is an epistemology and not a metaphysic. It only states what counts as knowledge and through what proper channels knowledge is acquired. It makes no statements regarding "what is" beyond positing that humans have inputs from their senses, and that these are the most reliable and consistent methods to gain beliefs which hold up over time (ie knowledge). It does not make statements that those things which cannot be known are false, or that do not count as knowedge are false. It is merely stated that they cannot be considered known. MrH did a fantastic job of outlining this misread of what naturalism is, which IDers like Johnson live on, but I just thought it might be good to get terminology straightened out. It really is just an epistemology. Knowledge gained from this epistemology may help one create a more concrete metaphysic, but that is never a certainty. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Just to be absolutely clear, what Holmes is describing is Methodological Naturalism.
Aside from that detail I fully agree with his description. Johnson would disagree - but he makes the assumption that anything outside of scientific investigation cannot exist. In short according to Johnson if we cannot at least in principle scientifically prove that God exists, He doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
All Science makes metaphysical assumptions. Most obviously: there is an objective real world we can study.
Not much of an assumption, but one none the less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I agree science makes assumptions that it uses as a starting platform.It then TESTS the assumption against the only thing we have which is the thing we tend to call reality.I do not think people doubt their existence without bringing to bear the confusion that philosophy often becomes.And science does one thing the philosophers never do .Experiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Hmm, no, I don't think so. Science, by it's very nature, is incapable of testing the assumption 'there is a real world we can study'. Thus it remains a metaphysical assumption.
Hardly calls into question the validity of science though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I think you make an error in judgement here since you state that science makes a "meta"-physical assumption.Without the physical world already agreed upon by concesus philosophy cannot make further categories since it would therefore have no referent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is exactly the metaphysical assumption. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
mrJack writes: All Science makes metaphysical assumptions. Most obviously: there is an objective real world we can study. Not to be cute, but I didn't say science makes NO metaphysical assumptions AT ALL. I said there are no specific metaphysical assumptions made by science beyond sensory inputs being our mind's only window into what the world is. This does entail their being an objective world, and "real" as long as one does not mean physical. Several philosophers accepted scientific method, yet held they were nothing more than describing rules attached to our inputs, and nothing existed beyond them in any real tangible sense. Thus the metaphysical constraints of science are so slim that it cannot possibly exclude religious metaphysics at all, which is all I was arguing against. It seemed joralex felt that science was based on a metaphysic which required the nonexistence of supernatural beings. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
sidelined writes: And science does one thing the philosophers never do .Experiment. Science is natural philosophy, ergo some philosophers do experiment. Or conversely, theoretical scientists may never experiment at all, would that mean scientists don't experiment? Pretty much it comes down to this, there are those who experiment and there are those who theorize. One might point out that just because a person does not experiment does not make that person wrong or their theories fallable. In fact, there are many times that theories must remain just that until physical means are invented to be able to conduct experiments based upon the theory. My only problem with theorists, are those who create theories that are wholly untestable... even in theory. That is scientists or pure philosophers (like mathematicians) who DESIGN theories for which no experiments can ever be constructed, for the purpose of leaving their theory invulnerable to evidentiary attack, and then shoot arrows at other theories for each potential evidentiary failure. In fact, some such philosophers have even found it necessary to DESIGN new theories about how logic itself must be conducted, so as to leave their metaphysic (and their epistemology) beyond logical attack as well. Please do not demean philosophy by lumping those bunch of thumbtwiddlers into our ranks. They are neither scientists nor philosophers. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Pure mathematics isn't untestable, it's just that empirical tests don't usually apply - because there's no empirical content.
The empirical content comes when you try to apply the mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Ok let us make room for some clarity here.What definition for metaphysics are we using here?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024