Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:04 AM
26 online now:
caffeine, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,845 Year: 9,881/19,786 Month: 2,303/2,119 Week: 339/724 Day: 2/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 31 of 33 (60128)
10-08-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
10-08-2003 1:45 PM


paulK writes:

The empirical content comes when you try to apply the mathematics.

This is why mathematians are pure philosophers and not scientists. The latter are natural philosophers, which study (and theorize regarding) only those things with empirical content.

I didn't mean my comment as a dissing of mathematicians. I don't have a problem with "pure philosophy", just as long as it allows for some practical/empirical application... which mathematics generally does.

------------------
holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2003 1:45 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 33 (60149)
10-08-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Silent H
10-08-2003 1:36 PM


quote:
Science is natural philosophy, ergo some philosophers do experiment.

That use of the phrase natural philosphy is so out-of-date now. I don't think that your statement above is at all true.

The original line by sidelined was:
And science does one thing the philosophers never do .Experiment.

He was using science in the colletive and "philosphers" as a whole. Your comments about doing and not doing experiments don't make sense in that context. It is the same with theorists too. They are part of the collective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 10-08-2003 1:36 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 6:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 33 (60161)
10-08-2003 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
10-08-2003 4:37 PM


There are theoretical physicists who are the main source of much of my understanding of science nowadays. Richard Feynman Julius Schwinger Murray Gell-Mann are in the elite category (most especially Feynman) who had a great enough grasp of the physics as an extention of their minds that they have been known to bring to bear theories in contradiction of then known experimental data and categorically state that the experiments were in error.And they were found to be correct.
I am at present intrigued with a website that not only shows the level of refinement that our present knowledge is at but also shows how pervasive the levels of error are in what is being taught to people through their education.I highly recommend taking the time to check it out.It gives me insights that never before occured to me and I always come away with the distinct impression that my mind has just participated in high level gymnastics.For those with any inclination the site is
http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.html

Hey don't dare say I didn't warn you.

Philosophy has always struck me as people trying to get out of a one door room through the ceiling and wondering why everybody cannot see the same exit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2003 4:37 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019