Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Methodological Naturalism is the basis for the belief of Metaphysical Naturalism, because there is no objective verifiable evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis for alternative. The alternatives require philosophical and theological assumptions outside our objective physical world. Yes, it requires a philosophical assumption that there are no other worlds or Gods beyond the physical world, but nonetheless there is a basis for the belief.
    But the question IS whether or not science can provide the only definitive knowledge. You are ASSUMING that it can in your premise. The question is not whether there are any other "worlds or Gods beyond the physical" but whether the statement "only empirically verifiable statements can be definitively true" is self-contradictory and internally incoherent, i.e. whether it fails to meet its own criterion of truth.

    Methodological Naturalism is the "basis" of Metaphysical Naturalism at most as the necessary but not the sufficient condition. Otherwise, how could scientists be practicing scientists, i.e. methodological naturalists? There is no logical entailment; one can argue, at most, that it is the most reasonable assumption.






    That is an issue concerning what we are talking about, and you reinforced it.
    No, sorry. You have no idea what we are talking about in this instance.



    You are making confllicting statements.
    How exactly am I making 'conflicting' statements? And please try to write more clearly than you usually do.



    Simply you have not been able back up decisive 'turths' out side science. and in science they are decisive theories and hypothesis that are subject to change with new information. Outside science we do not ahve that 'decisive' basis for knowledge.
    What is a more decisive truth than the truth than that I am conscious? Or that I exist? Or that I am now in pain? Any empirical judgment can be wrong because I can be a brain in a vat or in "the Matrix" etc. Also, the judgment that not all paintings can be forgeries is just one example of a definitive truth that can't be empirically verified.





    Name calling is not a coherent response.

    It still remains you have failed to provide 'decisive' truths based on subjective philosophical assumptions.

    de·ci·sive /dəˈsīsiv/ adjective settling an issue; producing a definite result.


    Still waiting . . . but I will not hold my breath.

    When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? When you cannot objecitively support them.
    It's not name calling when it bears directly on the issue at hand. You and Tassman are inside of an ideology that goes by various names, e.g. scientism, scientific expansionism, etc. That is why this discussion has been so very difficult and why neither of you ever take the trouble to try to understand the actual positions you are allegedly trying to refute. Do you remember Boxing Pythagoras? He and I also disagreed about these issues, but the difference was that he tried to understand what I was actually saying. He didn't retreat to his reflexive defensive posture, constantly making a caricature out of all of my responses.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      No, it’s a response to your vacuous: “Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to who? Obviously, to those that believe in said deities.
      You apparently know as much about morality and meta-ethics as you do about most of the other matters you opine upon on here. I believe in a deity but don't believe said deity is the 'arbiter of moral behavior.'



      Not at all. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not metaphysical arguments about the nature of good and evil.
      That's the "genetic fallacy." More cartoon thinking.



      See above.
      See my response to Shuny, if it ever posts.



      Scientific hypotheses are merely proposed explanations for a phenomenon. The next step is to investigate the hypothesis so as to arrive at a scientific theory that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method. Empirical knowledge as in settled science, is rarely overturned. And, unlike metaphysical arguments, scientific methodology has the means to empirically test its knowledge.
      But any empirical scientist will tell you that all the empirical data in the world is meaningless if you don't know how to think.



      Indeed, they ARE “doing completely, incommensurately different kinds of things, at different logical levels”. Cogitative science is searching for (and finding) a decisive physical explanation for subjective experiences such as ‘pain’. Whereas metaphysics can offer nothing more than talking about it – as you so loquaciously demonstrate.
      Other than provide the necessary and sufficient conditions and foundation for science, you mean? See above, not that it will do any good.



      Nevertheless, it is either Methodological Naturalism - namely verifiable evidence and falsifiable hypotheses - or nothing other than the academic, inconclusive, unverifiable armchair musings in which you specialize.
      I accept Methodological Naturalism. Do you mean Metaphysical Naturalism? If so, then that's a very simple, black and white schematic of the landscape. You ought to read Einstein's 'Ideas and Opinions' for a more nuanced understanding.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        But the question IS whether or not science can provide the only definitive knowledge. You are ASSUMING that it can in your premise. The question is not whether there are any other "worlds or Gods beyond the physical" but whether the statement "only empirically verifiable statements can be definitively true" is self-contradictory and internally incoherent, i.e. whether it fails to meet its own criterion of truth.

        Methodological Naturalism is the "basis" of Metaphysical Naturalism at most as the necessary but not the sufficient condition. Otherwise, how could scientists be practicing scientists, i.e. methodological naturalists? There is no logical entailment; one can argue, at most, that it is the most reasonable assumption.

        No, sorry. You have no idea what we are talking about in this instance.

        How exactly am I making 'conflicting' statements? And please try to write more clearly than you usually do.

        What is a more decisive truth than the truth than that I am conscious? Or that I exist? Or that I am now in pain? Any empirical judgment can be wrong because I can be a brain in a vat or in "the Matrix" etc. Also, the judgment that not all paintings can be forgeries is just one example of a definitive truth that can't be empirically verified.
        These are simply facts of the 'physical nature of our existence, and NOT 'decisive truths.'
        Still waiting . . .

        It's not name calling when it bears directly on the issue at hand. You and Tassman are inside of an ideology that goes by various names, e.g. scientism, scientific expansionism, etc. That is why this discussion has been so very difficult and why neither of you ever take the trouble to try to understand the actual positions you are allegedly trying to refute. Do you remember Boxing Pythagoras? He and I also disagreed about these issues, but the difference was that he tried to understand what I was actually saying. He didn't retreat to his reflexive defensive posture, constantly making a caricature out of all of my responses.

        Yes, you resorted to insulting name calling when you have failed to respond constructively

        Still waiting for an example decisive 'turth' that you are proposing and failing to provide.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-11-2020, 06:13 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          I believe in a deity but don't believe said deity is the 'arbiter of moral behavior.'
          So, as a theist, you DON’T believe your deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.

          That's the "genetic fallacy."
          No, evolutionary theory. Our morality is merely the codification of our evolved social behavior to survive as cooperative social animals.

          But any empirical scientist will tell you that all the empirical data in the world is meaningless if you don't know how to think.
          A truism which applies to all areas of life.

          Other than provide the necessary and sufficient conditions and foundation for science, you mean?
          Science is adept at providing its own “necessary and sufficient conditions and foundations” without resorting to armchair metaphysicians like you

          I accept Methodological Naturalism. Do you mean Metaphysical Naturalism? If so, then that's a very simple, black and white schematic of the landscape.
          You prefer a grey “schematic of the landscape” do you – one that leaves room for ambiguity?

          Naturalism is the accepted scientific paradigm and I have several times indicated that Methodological Naturalism is the most logical correlate of Metaphysical Naturalism.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            Science is adept at providing its own “necessary and sufficient conditions and foundations” without resorting to armchair metaphysicians like you
            Please demonstrate, using only science**, what those "necessary and sufficient conditions" are, and how precisely science can provide them to itself.



            **Since your claim is that science can provide them, you clearly won't need to use any metaphysics, or indeed, philosophy of any kind.
            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              Please demonstrate, using only science**, what those "necessary and sufficient conditions" are, and how precisely science can provide them to itself.



              **Since your claim is that science can provide them, you clearly won't need to use any metaphysics, or indeed, philosophy of any kind.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • First this response reflects an intentional ignorance of science and scientific methodology.

                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Please demonstrate, using only science**, what those "necessary and sufficient conditions" are, and how precisely science can provide them to itself.
                Methodological Naturalism using scientific methods 'only' to demonstrate descriptively and predictably and consistency of the nature of our physical existence, which is decisive; but not a truth, but of course subject to change with new information. Science is very 'precise' as descriptive of our physical existence, bit of course subject to change.

                Can you offer a competing methodology that demonstrates the decisive, predictable and consistent discription of our physical existence?

                **Since your claim is that science can provide them,
                Done that.

                you clearly won't need to use any metaphysics, or indeed, philosophy of any kind.
                The philosophy of science 'only' deals with the objective verifiable evidence and how it can be used to describe our physical existence, and no further. Popper is the father of Methodological Naturalism, described the limits of science defining the falsifiability of theories and hypothesis. Metaphysical, theological and philosophical assumptions, beliefs and logical arguments that are not based on objective verifiable evidence are outside the scope lacking the decisive obective predicable methods of knowledge of science. The huge variation and contradictions in the claims, beliefs, and conclusions of logical arguments will not be consistently accepted beyond what some believe and others do nt, because of their subjective nature of this thinking.

                The metaphysics of science still deals with attributes of objective nature of our physical existtence in how to describe the fronteer of science and asks questions like 'What are the Laws of Nature,' which is descriptive in science.

                Source: https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/#:~:text=Metaphysics%20of%20Science%20is%20the,that%20correspond%20to%20these%20concepts.&text=Many%20of%20these%20concepts%20are%20interwoven%20with%20each%20other.


                Metaphysics of Science is the philosophical study of key concepts that figure prominently in science and that, prima facie, stand in need of clarification. It is also concerned with the phenomena that correspond to these concepts. Exemplary topics within Metaphysics of Science include laws of nature, causation, dispositions, natural kinds, possibility and necessity, explanation, reduction, emergence, grounding, and space and time.

                VMetaphysics of Science is a subfield of both metaphysics and the philosophy of science—that is, it can be allocated to either, but it exhausts neither. Unlike metaphysics simpliciter, Metaphysics of Science is not primarily concerned with metaphysical questions that may already arise from everyday phenomena such as what makes a thing (a chair, a desk) the very thing it is, what its identity criteria are, out of which parts is it composed, whether it remains the same if we exchange a couple of its parts, and so forth. Nor is it concerned with the concrete entities (superstrings, molecules, genes, and so forth) postulated by specific sciences; these issues are the subject matter of the special philosophies of science (for example, of physics, of chemistry, of biology).

                Metaphysics of Science is concerned with more abstract and general concepts that inform all of these sciences. Many of these concepts are interwoven with each other. For example, metaphysicians of science inquire whether dispositionality, lawhood, and causation can be accounted for in nonmodal terms; whether laws of nature presuppose the existence of natural kinds; and whether the properties of macrolevel objects supervene on dispositional or nondispositional properties.

                © Copyright Original Source



                The question still remains, Can you demonstrate any thing outside science that is a descriptive, consistent predictable 'decidive truth?'
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-12-2020, 07:33 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                  Please demonstrate, using only science**, what those "necessary and sufficient conditions" are, and how precisely science can provide them to itself.
                  So much for your pretensions of cleverness. Methodological Naturalism, the foundation of the scientific method, is grounded in Metaphysical Naturalism. I’ve already said that. Frequently. My point, which you willfully misinterpreted, is that science investigates the natural world. It has no need of the agenda of metaphysicians exploring the possibly of non-natural occurrences.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    So much for your pretensions of cleverness. Methodological Naturalism, the foundation of the scientific method, is grounded in Metaphysical Naturalism. I’ve already said that. Frequently. My point, which you willfully misinterpreted, is that science investigates the natural world. It has no need of the agenda of metaphysicians exploring the possibly of non-natural occurrences.
                    Disagree, Methodological Naturalism is grounded in the neutrality from philosophical beliefs such as Metaphysical Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism remains a philosophical worldview and not a scientific one.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-13-2020, 07:51 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      These are simply facts of the 'physical nature of our existence, and NOT 'decisive truths.'
                      Still waiting . . .
                      They are decisive truths and they are not 'simply facts of the physical nature of our existence.' You're begging the question again. Phenomenal truths are NOT logically entailed by physical truths. There is no logical entailment. We've been over this many times. Only a prior commitment to physicalism would prevent one from understanding this point. I do not expect either of you to agree with this point, but I expect you to at least understand the point that I am making, assuming that you have the capacity to understand it.




                      Yes, you resorted to insulting name calling when you have failed to respond constructively

                      Still waiting for an example decisive 'turth' that you are proposing and failing to provide.
                      It is not name calling to point out the source of the impasse in a conversation. The source of the impasse is an unexamined ideological commitment to scientism and physicalism. This commitment blinds both of you, preventing you from being able to even begin to understand the points I am attempting to make, let alone to successfully respond to them.

                      Can you not see that you are undermining your own case by making a philosophical case for it? Can you see the paradox involved in engaging in lengthy philosophical debates in which you keep making the case against philosophy and for science as the only source of definitive knowledge?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        So, as a theist, you DONÂ’T believe your deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.
                        No, I don't. These things are not nearly as simple as you might assume.



                        No, evolutionary theory. Our morality is merely the codification of our evolved social behavior to survive as cooperative social animals.
                        Yes, that's the 'genetic fallacy' again. These things, again, are not nearly as simple as you might assume.



                        A truism which applies to all areas of life.
                        One wouldn't even know what a 'datum' is or a 'fact' after all, without already sophisticated powers of discrimination and an already rich conceptual web to fit them into.



                        Science is adept at providing its own “necessary and sufficient conditions and foundations” without resorting to armchair metaphysicians like you
                        Well, I'm not much of a metaphysician myself, but generally speaking you're absolutely wrong. You know nothing about the foundations of science. Science happens to be metaphysical through and through.



                        You prefer a grey “schematic of the landscape” do you – one that leaves room for ambiguity?
                        I think "humility" is the better term. The humility of an Einstein, for instance, and his reverence in the face of metaphysical conditions that make science possible.

                        Naturalism is the accepted scientific paradigm and I have several times indicated that Methodological Naturalism is the most logical correlate of Metaphysical Naturalism.
                        As I've stated numerous times, there is no logical entailment between them. Otherwise, no theist could be a practicing natural scientist. Those two things are perfectly compatible. So deciding on what is the "most logical correlate" would have to be decided on metaphysical ( non-empirical ) grounds.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          They are decisive truths and they are not 'simply facts of the physical nature of our existence.'
                          They are decisive facts that may be verified by scientific methods. You have nothing beyond that.

                          Still waiting for a decisve truth. Simple physical facts are not decisive truths.

                          Still waiting . . .
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Disagree, Methodological Naturalism is grounded in the neutrality from philosophical beliefs such as Metaphysical Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism remains a philosophical worldview and not a scientific one.
                            When I say that Methodological Naturalism is “grounded” in Metaphysical naturalism I’m not saying that it is dependent upon it. But I think one can make the case that it fits comfortably within the framework of Metaphysical Naturalism in that, while not one of logical entailment, “it is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility”.

                            https://infidels.org/library/modern/...aturalism.html
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              No, I don't. These things are not nearly as simple as you might assume.
                              Nevertheless, many theists DO believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.

                              Yes, that's the 'genetic fallacy' again. These things, again, are not nearly as simple as you might assume.
                              No, it is established Evolutionary Theory. Morality is a product of Natural Selection as it lends itself to our survival as a social species – something we share with other intelligent social animals to a limited degree in simpler forms.

                              One wouldn't even know what a 'datum' is or a 'fact' after all, without already sophisticated powers of discrimination and an already rich conceptual web to fit them into.
                              We have learnt from experience that “facts” are based upon information which can be tested and shown to be factual data. The rest is subjective - based on personal opinion, emotions or social pressure – NOT decisive truths.

                              You know nothing about the foundations of science. Science happens to be metaphysical through and through.
                              No. Science is an empirical method of acquiring information which is fact-based, measurable and observable.

                              As I've stated numerous times, there is no logical entailment between them.
                              I’ve not argued that there is a logical entailment between, merely that it is a reasonable metaphysical conclusion.

                              Otherwise, no theist could be a practicing natural scientist. Those two things are perfectly compatible.
                              Well, compared to the general public less than half “practicing natural scientists” are theists.

                              https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                They are decisive facts that may be verified by scientific methods. You have nothing beyond that.

                                Still waiting for a decisive truth. Simple physical facts are not decisive truths.

                                Still waiting . . .
                                Is the law of non-contradiction a decisive truth?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X