Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Article: Religion and Science
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 230 (219470)
06-25-2005 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
06-24-2005 10:03 PM


A fellow I knew in the Navy
Actually, at one point I had entered the Navy -- it was just after high school -- and I was aiming for their nuclear power program.
For some reason, they had a bunch of the nukes all in the same company. Being curious, I had taken a survey of the nukes, in part to see whether there was any correlation between religious belief and intelligence. (Yes, this seems a bit odd to me too, nowadays, but hey! I was young.) I don't believe I found any correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs, but I did find a bit that was interesting. One buddy of mine went by the name of Okamura. (Everybody was going by their last name in boot camp -- military thing.)
He had the highest scores of anyone there. And he was Catholic. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Didn't know quite what to make of that, and didn't get around really to asking him too many questions regarding his religious beliefs. But how did he manage to combine all three? I didn't exactly get the kind of answer I expected: he explained that three different members of his family held different religious beliefs, and somehow he had learned his religious beliefs from all three.
The fellow with the second highest set of scores was an atheist. Somehow that didn't seem quite as problematic...
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 12:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 06-24-2005 10:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 230 (219472)
06-25-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by lfen
06-24-2005 9:51 PM


Different Buddhas...
One thing I remember is that at least according to some Buddhist teachings, there have been a number of Buddha who have left this realm, achieving true enlightenment, but one gave that up in favor of coming back to help others achieve what he himself had given up. Don't know too much of the details, though. I have always liked the idea, though, of caring that much. Similarly, I like the story of Gethsemane. Quite different stories, with very different sets of emphasis, but there are some parallels.
I am also quite fond of St. Augustine's Confessions. The first psychological autobiography. Beautifully written. Not that I necessarily agree with his views, but that seems rather beside the point. One of the books we got the chance to read at St. John's College, a secular school devoted to The Great Books program -- presumably the best that Western Civilization has to offer. By the time I left, they were starting up an Eastern Studies program as an alternate track.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 12:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by lfen, posted 06-24-2005 9:51 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 12:48 AM TimChase has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 230 (219473)
06-25-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by TimChase
06-25-2005 12:40 AM


Re: Different Buddhas...
So were you a Johnny? Do much late dating? I always enjoyed both hanging around St. John's and also the dichotomy of the two sides of the street.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 12:40 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 12:57 AM jar has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 230 (219474)
06-25-2005 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
06-25-2005 12:48 AM


Re: Different Buddhas...
I believe you are refering to Annapolis -- my wife actually went to both the Annapolis school and the sister college in Santa Fe -- which we both went to later in the Graduate program. And yes, she has told me a number of times how the St. John's students used to get the Navy's goat -- steal it, actually, just prior to a game. Very much enjoyed the college, particularly a course by a fellow by the name of Barry Goldfarb -- a course on Plato's Republic. That course was almost too much. But he really opened it up as both a work of philosophy and a work of literature, where one cannot really begin to understand the purpose or role of the arguments without understanding the literary elements as well. My wife and I keep telling each other that we will go back and read the book again together. I hope we get around to that. Incidentally, Message 161 was at least in my mind a tribute to St. Johns, and likewise, "Religion and Science" might be viewed as a tribute to Plato's Republic. And when it comes to technical philosophy, I tend to impose a regular structure on it (actually five sections to every chapter, around eight chapters total) as a kind of tribute Homer's "The Odyssey." Three eighty page papers had this structure -- one a critique of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, another a critique of Descartes' Six Meditations on First Philosophy, and another a critical analysis of Early Twentieth Century Empiricism.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 01:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 12:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 1:31 AM TimChase has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 170 of 230 (219475)
06-25-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by TimChase
06-25-2005 12:57 AM


Re: Different Buddhas...
Well, I can't comment on SF or SFGI since they opened the Santa Fe operation a few years after I was messing around the areas. I don't think the middies were half as upset about the goat incidents as curfew. The Middies would make the date, take the young lady to dinner and a movie, cover the entertainment costs, and then when they returned to the Academy before curfew, have to see the Johnnies lined up across the street waiting patiently for the good-night kiss before taking their date out for post dinner festivities.
The reason I bring this up is that there really was a major dichotomy between the philosophies on the two sides of the street, perhaps more clearly shown there than any other single place I can think of. One was highly structured and very scientific based, the other, less structured (lecture, seminar and tutorial) and far more liberal arts oriented. But both were oriented towards honesty in their approach to learning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 12:57 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 1:41 AM jar has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 230 (219476)
06-25-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
06-25-2005 1:31 AM


Re: Different Buddhas...
Well, going to St. Johns in Santa Fe, I didn't really get any exposure to the Academy, obviously -- but prior to graduating from high school, I had thought about an officer's program. Went in as an enlisted guy in the nuclear power program, instead, but that didn't work out. Very high dropout rate at the time. I believe around 80-90%. The military was probably a mistake for me. But you can't change the past, and it is part of what makes you who you are now.
I liked St. John's emphasis on dialogue -- but I believe the school could have been improved with a greater emphasis upon writing in addition to discussion.
With regard to honesty, I have a story which my wife thinks is pretty much sums me up. Back when I was in first grade but at my grandmother's home with my mom, I figured out right then and there that there was no Santa, no easter bunny, and no tooth fairy, and I went ahead and told my mom, looking for confirmation. She agreed. I actually dimly remember a sense of betrayal, but at the same time, the sense that my parents hadn't in anyway intended to hurt me. Still I couldn't understand why I had been told something which was not the truth.
But a day or two later, my mom received a call from a teacher at school. The teacher asked my mom to tell me not to tell other kids that there was no Santa because it was making them upset. But what I had figured was that it was true, and surely they would want to know the truth.
Actually, there is something else, though, which I like to think is also telling. When I was at the University of Iowa (after the navy, but before St. Johns), there were three college kids (at least I believe they were in college) who had surrounded a blond college kid on a bicycle. He seemed a whole lot more athletic than me, but outnumbered. I asked what was going on, and they claimed that he had said something racist about them. I did not know whether or not this was true, but I knew that even if it were, if something were to happen to him, there could be a backlash, and at the very least, it would strain relations between the different ethnic groups.
So I jumped in and did my Ghandi impersonation. Got knocked down a few times, leather jacket torn in several places, but at one point, the kid saw an opportunity. He rode off as fast as he could, and while they were looking at him take off, I took the opportunity to get in front of an open nearby store. At that point, they left me alone. Part of it, I believe, was that I was worried that a backlash might have ended up personally affecting some of my friends. But I also cared about the community as a whole, and even the four young men of that encounter, even though I didn't know any of them.
And although no one story really stands out, I have also studied cults, up close and personal. I have some pretty strong feelings about how they will lock an individual's mind into a single framework, so I actually tried to infiltrate the Unification church. Didn't get very far, though. With most cults, if you show the slightest interest, the adherents will really open up, thinking that they have found someone who finally believes just as they do. I ran into one neo-Nazi who was like that. But not so with the Unification church -- they are far more careful. Would have liked to infiltrate a neo-Nazi organization, but my wife nixed that idea. Would have made a nice article, though. Maybe several.
Anyway, it is almost midnight here, and I am in the habit of getting up at five. So I am going to call it a night.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-25-2005 02:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 1:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 9:58 AM TimChase has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 172 of 230 (219484)
06-25-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
06-24-2005 10:03 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I would certainly be open to the suggestion that he was a prophet of God in the same way that Moses was. I'd even suggest that Christ is the completion of the teachings of Buddha in a somewhat similar way that He was to the teachings of Moses. Just speculation on my part but it does seem to fit.
Interesting you think it fits. I don't think it fits at all. To me the important thing about Buddha was that he wasn't a prophet. He wasn't representing any God and refused to comment on whether there was or was not a deity. His teachings were not based on a mystical revelation but on insight into his nature that culminated in a revolution of consciousness which he said was available to anyone to affirm. Very different from Abrahamic religons where you either believe the story or don't but have no way to experience the truth for yourself. Well, until you die.
I don't see how Christ would complete Buddha's teachings as he seems to be saying that egos will be given eternal life and that many egos will suffer. Mahayana Buddhism at least denies those things. There were Buddhist missionaries in the Near East about the time of Christ so there could have been an influence but there doesn't seem to be any documentation to speak of just a few references.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 06-24-2005 10:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by GDR, posted 06-25-2005 10:12 AM lfen has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 173 of 230 (219506)
06-25-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by TimChase
06-25-2005 1:41 AM


Re: Different Buddhas...
Interesting stories. Thanks for sharing. One day I'll tell you about my daughters Santa awakening, sorta.
So how would you handle the question I asked Faith? How should someone who believes 2 + 2 = 5 be treated?
Should we respect their belief and pay them with two $20.00 for every $50.00 owed?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 1:41 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 3:46 PM jar has not replied
 Message 181 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 6:40 PM jar has not replied
 Message 182 by TimChase, posted 06-25-2005 11:40 PM jar has not replied
 Message 183 by TimChase, posted 06-26-2005 12:09 AM jar has replied
 Message 186 by TimChase, posted 06-27-2005 9:30 AM jar has not replied
 Message 187 by TimChase, posted 06-27-2005 9:45 AM jar has replied
 Message 190 by TimChase, posted 06-27-2005 11:17 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 174 of 230 (219511)
06-25-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by lfen
06-25-2005 4:11 AM


Re: Where would it end?
Getting way OT. Please do not respond to this side-thread
ifen writes:
Interesting you think it fits. I don't think it fits at all. To me the important thing about Buddha was that he wasn't a prophet. He wasn't representing any God and refused to comment on whether there was or was not a deity. His teachings were not based on a mystical revelation but on insight into his nature that culminated in a revolution of consciousness which he said was available to anyone to affirm. Very different from Abrahamic religons where you either believe the story or don't but have no way to experience the truth for yourself. Well, until you die.
I don't see how Christ would complete Buddha's teachings as he seems to be saying that egos will be given eternal life and that many egos will suffer. Mahayana Buddhism at least denies those things. There were Buddhist missionaries in the Near East about the time of Christ so there could have been an influence but there doesn't seem to be any documentation to speak of just a few references.
I realize that the theologies don't fit, but the point is that the message of love and compassion does. I was just struck by how the language was so similar to the teachings of Jesus. To me it indicates the eternal message that God is trying to deliver to us.
Where I suggest that in some manner Christ would complete the teachings is because I can see the Buddhist that hears that timeless message spending a life serving Christ even if he doesn't know him by name.
This message has been edited by GDR, 06-25-2005 07:14 AM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-25-2005 10:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by lfen, posted 06-25-2005 4:11 AM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 11:09 AM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 230 (219518)
06-25-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by GDR
06-25-2005 10:12 AM


Re: Where would it end?
Getting way OT. Please do not respond to this side-thread.
Where I suggest that in some manner Christ would complete the teachings is because I can see the Buddhist that hears that timeless message spending a life serving Christ even if he doesn't know him by name.
You could conceivably be right that some early Buddhists at least might be attracted to Christ if presented with Him, but doctrinally there are many reasons why Buddhism would never be completed by Christ, and in my experience with serious practicing Buddhists they have NO interest whatever in the gospel of Christ -- which seems very odd if they are in fact "serving" Him without knowing it.
Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy in the Old Testament, not just the explainer or completer of doctrine, a Savior who is far more than a teacher or an example but a sacrifice made to atone for sin, what the OT sacrifices represented but could not actually accomplish. I don't see how any of this relates to the teachings of Buddha.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 11:09 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 11:11 AM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-25-2005 10:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by GDR, posted 06-25-2005 10:12 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 06-25-2005 12:00 PM Faith has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 176 of 230 (219524)
06-25-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
06-25-2005 11:09 AM


Re: Where would it end?
I agree that Christ is foretold in the OT and not in the message of Buddha. We may disagree, but I believe that it is very scripturally correct to say that Jesus taught that the important thing is to actually live his message, not just to hear it and believe it.
I believe in the metaphysical world, and I believe that there is a spiritual change that accompanies true conversion and that we receive an awakening of our consciousness that can help us down the path of loving God and our neighbour.
As I have said before, I am convinced that God is far more concerned about the condition of our hearts than he is our theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 11:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 12:10 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 177 of 230 (219528)
06-25-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by GDR
06-25-2005 12:00 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I agree that Christ is foretold in the OT and not in the message of Buddha. We may disagree, but I believe that it is very scripturally correct to say that Jesus taught that the important thing is to actually live his message, not just to hear it and believe it.
I don't disagree with this. Both are essential. But you appear to throw out the hearing and believing part as if it were possible to live it without that. No way. You hear it and believe it and that makes it possible to live it. Otherwise you're living something else, not the truths of Christ.
I believe in the metaphysical world, and I believe that there is a spiritual change that accompanies true conversion and that we receive an awakening of our consciousness that can help us down the path of loving God and our neighbour.
As I have said before, I am convinced that God is far more concerned about the condition of our hearts than he is our theology.
Ditto what I said above. There is no contradiction between these. The condition of our heart depends on our right theology. A wrong theology leads to errors of heart. You keep wanting to throw out the theology as if the heart could find its own way without it. If that were the case Jesus wouldn't have needed to come or teach anything at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by GDR, posted 06-25-2005 12:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 06-25-2005 12:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 178 of 230 (219532)
06-25-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
06-25-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Faith writes:
Ditto what I said above. There is no contradiction between these. The condition of our heart depends on our right theology. A wrong theology leads to errors of heart. You keep wanting to throw out the theology as if the heart could find its own way without it. If that were the case Jesus wouldn't have needed to come or teach anything at all.
There is where we have a basic disagreement. Our heart is changed because we respond to that "small still voice of God" in all of us. The right theology helps us to understand and it also tells us how we can be more attuned to that "small still voice of God" by finding relationship in this life with Christ.
It is still God that we worship, not the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 06-25-2005 12:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 230 (219537)
06-25-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Jazzns
06-24-2005 3:30 AM


Re: Where would it end?
To answer first your Message 127:
You may be right that jar is not advocating a legal crackdown on the rights of creationists and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since I wish the creationists would back off myself.
I don't agree that the literalists' "agenda is anti-American" however, as they are simply using the democratic means available to all citizens in a free society. I simply think that they need a bigger overview of the whole situation because the way they are dealing with the problem is hopelessly doomed and misses the whole point of living the Christian life in a pluralistic world.
You can be quite reasonable sometimes Faith; which is very confusing....
Alas, I guess even I can't be PERfectly unreasonable.
On to Message 133
It is interesting to recognize when our ideas coincide. I can't really think of another time they have other than this one but it may suggest that the polarity of our arguments are blinding us all a little.
You also have to understand that many of us have often had to deal with a certain amount of legitimate wackjobs. Although we are still interested in the issues, there is a sense of disenchantment when someone comes in here thinking they are going to overturn the foundations of science with a few brazen quotes a la Kent Hovind.
Well I had to learn the hard way that I wasn't going to get anywhere in the science discussions and have backed off, though I did leave two or three hanging that I meant to get back to and never did.
If your goal is to create understanding then there is already a bar for which you must aim much higher than to earn any credibility past the quote mining, plagiarizing, outright lying counterparts on your side of the fence.
My goal is to help the creationists make their case but I've had to put that on a back burner for now. When I came into this site I didn't have much sense of the creationists approach to the arguments here, and now overall I do believe that the accusations of their methods are not completely deserved. I answered one such accusation of creationist lying myself only to have the person I was disagreeing with nominated for a POTM and my own argument dismissed. I continue to disagree of course but that's just one of the many ways I find evo bias running the show here. It's understandable and I'm trying to adapt. Whether I will ever find a way to make any points for my side within this system I don't know yet.
The point of all this was to address your statement that "we" never consider that you might be right. My point is that it is a little disingenuous to assume this given that most of us involved in this debate have already gone through much of what your consider "right" before; maybe even in the turmoil of religious crisis as was my case.
Actually this is not really about what I meant. When I said it's not considered that my side might be right I wasn't thinking of the whole evo-creo argument but the points on this thread about the politics of education and the rights of parents and the like. (I may have to come back and edit this because I've forgotten the exact context.) But I also haven't personally had the sense that the creo side overall gets any real consideration either. But as you go on to say I suppose that can be because of having already encountered so much of it.
It is not just that your ideas are being rejected out of hand. It is that they have been considered before, often with extreme care and reverence due to impact on religion, and been repeatedly rejected in this venue and others. Before I ever started posting here I studied and prayed ferociously about the issue. When these issues were new to me I hung onto every word of the debate. Now though, when someone brings up something like the "no new genetic information" argument I have to admit that I roll my eyes a little bit and think, "not again!"
Well, forgive me for being a dumb creo but IS it at all possible that these things COULD have been "repeatedly rejected" and yet wrongly? That there is a glitch in the form of a hidden assumption that bends thinking in a certain direction that needs to be exposed?
This is a difficult medium to discuss a diametric topic. Not only is the communication difficult at times but the history and previous experiences of the participants is always an X factor that can either enlighten or derail a discussion.
That's true. It's too bad if all that ever happens here is a repeat of the same-old-same-old. Seems like a creative solution is needed to keep creos from blundering into this armed camp with the same old arguments. But at the same time I don't find the evo arguments to be all that compelling either, and the bias pretty hidebound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Jazzns, posted 06-24-2005 3:30 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 230 (219575)
06-25-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
06-25-2005 9:58 AM


Stories, Knowledge, and Civilization, part 1 of 4
Well, humans are story tellers, and a story in much like an old, worn, familiar path. The stories which you tell about yourself are much like paths through the woods back to your home. In one interesting book, it was even suggested that a large part of one's view of oneself consists a kind of narrative through which you define yourself, where you are coming from, where you are going, why you are going there -- and who you are. And one interesting problem is what happens when you lose your way -- when the story no longer fits, the narrative loses its thread, and you no longer know who you are. Will you be able to find another narrative? And what do you do while you are still searching for it?
I guess another story which is kind of important to me is one in which nothing particularly important happened. I was in the navy on shore leave, just looking out to the horizon. But what I was seeing were a great many ships gathered from across the globe stretching from nearby out to that horizon. And at that moment, a truth which until that moment had seemed so abstract -- that human civilization depends upon a cognitive division of labor which is able to accomplish something far beyond the intellect of any one individual -- seemed concretely real, like something which I could almost touch. And I realized that the very existence of human civilization itself depends upon this cogntive division of labor.
But now lets turn to a different set of stories which are nevertheless quite important to how individuals define themselves. With regard to religions in general, while I realize there are some important differences between them (e.g., between the son of God sent down to die for our sins, and a Buddha-figure who achieves enlightenment on his own, but turns back from Nirvana to bring enlightenment to others), at least from my own perspective -- which involves how life is lived here on earth, the similarities seem far more significant -- for example, both are savior-figures, and much of the ethics taught by both show a good number of correspondences. Each religion addresses fundamental problems of human nature -- and they arive at similar answers, although they may often phrase those answers differently, appealing to different symbols. It would be a great mistake to say that these religions are the same, for among other things, the symbols are also a part of how individuals define themselves, but it would be a far greater mistake to say that they have nothing in common.
For the moment, lets turn to a particular string of symbols which I have seen on a variety of occasions in this discussion:
2+2=4
As I understand it, what this represents is a very special kind of truth, or at least, so it would be viewed throughout much of the history of philosophy. Kant (with whom I have good number of disagreements, including a few closely related to this statement) would have regarded this as synthetic apriori. Other philosophers (during the era of early twentieth century empiricism) would have regarded it as analytic. Both would have regarded it as independent of experience. Is it truly independent of experience? Well, probably not, and I believe that even Kant would have admitted as much. But in any case, this kind of truth is quite different from the truth discovered by means of empirical science. Assuming you know the meaning of the terms, there isn't much that you have to do to know that the proposition which it expresses is true, regardless of what you units which are adding are units of (e.g., dogs, cats, rocks, meters, or seconds).
But the knowledge discovered by empirical science is of a different kind. Particularly the abstract, affirmative propositions. Perhaps the first philosopher to truly appreciate the nature of the difference was a fellow by the name of Pierre Duhem in the late nineteenth century, and his insight later became known as "Duhem's Thesis." As he understood it no general empirical proposition can be tested in isolation. Likewise, above a fairly basic level, no empirical theory is capable of being tested in isolation -- for one must often presuppose the truth of propositions arrived at by means of other more well-tested empirical theories in order to test some more advanced, less-tested theory.
For example, when testing whether light is bent to the degree predicted by the theory of General Relativity, one must rely upon the empirical theory of optics when designing the apparatus for making this test. Furthermore, if one is making the apparatus, one may very well be applying the results of materials science, which will tell you about the optical properties of the materials from which the apparatus is made. But of course, one can remove some of the uncertainties by testing the apparatus under local conditions, and scientists undoubtedly do. Nevertheless, Pierre Duhem had pointed out an interdependence which exists in empirical science which wasn't fully appreciated in the philosophy of science until the 1950s. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the entire enterprise of early twentieth century empiricism having taken place if this insight had been more fully appreciated at the time.
continued in Message 181
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 12:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 06-25-2005 9:58 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024