the ignotist and Occam arguments

[shadowmaster]

I of course disagree with your radical portrayal of the present knowledge of science being, 'flat outright wrong.' No, a discovery is something new that adds to knowledge of science by any reasonable definition concerning science, not an 'ambiguous patchwork on a theory that does not work.'

When something is wrong, a lot of fancy talk does correct as being only partial knowledge. Science has often been wrong and you cannot change that with words.

Regardless of whether you consider our current understanding of science imperfect, partial, conditional, or 'flat outright wrong is not the issue. The issue is the nature of our physical existence, which based on our present knowledge is without perfections.

I think that is most illogical statement that I have ever heard from anyone.
Our physical existence is what?

[shunyadragon]

When something is wrong, a lot of fancy talk does correct as being only partial knowledge. Science has often been wrong and you cannot change that with words.

Your view of science is unfortunately cynical and negative.

Our physical existence is what?

Based on our present knowledge our physical universe is without imperfections.

[Sparko]

Shuny, Shadowmaster IS a scientist, who actually makes a living doing science. Unlike yourself who likes to think of himself as a scientist because you read a few popular science books and do carpentry for a living.

[shadowmaster]

Your view of science is unfortunately cynical and negative.

Fortunately my boss thinks it is correct and constructive.

Based on our present knowledge our physical universe is without imperfections.

Says a misinformed philosopher who seems to be unteachable.

[shunyadragon]

Fortunately my boss thinks it is correct and constructive.

Please cite a source and reference for your boss.

[shadowmaster]

Please cite a source and reference for your boss.

why?

[shunyadragon]

why?

If there is any validity to your claim it is nice to have something to back it up.

I prefer Leonhard's description of science from a philosophy thread than your cynical out look.

Well broadly speaking it depends on exactly what you mean by Verificationism. Some empirical approaches ran into the difficulties you gave, but I'm not sure all of them do. In fact I can think of several ways that 'Verificationism' could be verified in some sense. An example would be to show that all the knowledge that humans have developed, were gained through empirical means and the rest being analytical stuff (logic, maths, deduction, etc..) without remainder. You could also present a plausible account of how humans who were placed on the Earth could work out something akin to our worldview using only experience, without needing transcendent truth embedded in their minds before they could reason. If you could show some knowledge not gained through sense experience, then that would rule verificationism out I think, however I'm not sure how you could do that.

I think -or so psychology say- that we're born with something approximating a weak sketch of the world in our mind that we're continually improving upon as we learn more. Most ideas we start out with are wrong, but they're continuously replaced with better (less wrong) ideas as we learn more things. Personally I think what's happening is a bit of a mixture of Foundationalism and Verificationism... Veridationalism? Foundationalism? You mostly do stuff empirically, but having perhaps a couple of key starting axioms that you only update if find ways to simplify them or find that they lead to unexpected contradictions. Ever read Susan Haack's Defending Science Within Reason? Its a good simple common sense approach, that starts with human psychology and knowledge about how science actually works.

There's so many types of empiricism that I think someone will need to specify a bit more in order to bring out contradictions.

The biggest problem I have with knowledge that's not empirical is to settle how you could know about it, when you've started out excluding any way of knowing it. Philosophical arguments have to start from premises that you have to discover, but how can you test the truth of a premise that there's literally no way of verifying?

[shadowmaster]

If there is any validity to your claim it is nice to have something to back it up.

I do not need to prove anything to you. If you think that I have lied then the burden of proof is on you.

I prefer Leonhard's description of science from a philosophy thread than your cynical out look.

Calling my statements "cynical" is hypocritical on your part.
you are clueless in science and just read philosophical articles
I deal in facts, not philosophical wish lists.
Scientists constantly make errors and the theories must be corrected.
As Millikan stated: Science walks on two feet, theory and experiment..
That is the difference between those who do science for a living and you philosophers who just daydream about it.

SM

[shunyadragon]

Actually, from my spiritual nature, Creation is like the refection of God' purpose and intent, perfect and without flaws as God intended.

[shadowmaster]

Actually, from my spiritual nature, Creation is like the refection of God' purpose and intent, perfect and without flaws as God intended.

Since the thread is about philosophy, not science, I will cede the point to you



SM

[shunyadragon]

I do not need to prove anything to you. If you think that I have lied then the burden of proof is on you.

I did not say you lied. I simply said you made a reference to an authority without supporting citation.

Calling my statements "cynical" is hypocritical on your part.
you are clueless in science and just read philosophical articles
I deal in facts, not philosophical wish lists.
Scientists constantly make errors and the theories must be corrected.
As Millikan stated: Science walks on two feet, theory and experiment..
That is the difference between those who do science for a living and you philosophers who just daydream about it.

SM

Over your head, I already acknowledged the limits of human science and everything you say above, except your senseless and useless name calling. Why are continuing to beat the dead horse?

[shunyadragon]

Since the thread is about philosophy, not science, I will cede the point to you



SM

. . . and this is confirmed by science, our universe has never failed to perform naturally.

[shadowmaster]

. . . and this is confirmed by science, our universe has never failed to perform naturally.

You do not understand science.
Stick to philosophy.

[shadowmaster]

Actually Shuny's posts are not most uniformed about science.
Tassman has nosed him out.

This is a waste of time
SM

[Griggsy]

God cannot be Himself per the teleonomic argument that as science finds no intent, then He does not exert any intent or direction in the Cosmos, thereby He cannot have the intent to make Big Bangs and so forth, and thus wouldn't have referents and thus could not exist!
Thus, by this analysis and finding no arguments to instantiate Him, instead of traversing the Cosmos or have omniscience ourselves, we strong atheists can flatly proclaim: no God exists! That is hardly dogmatic! We don't need faith as Alister Earl McGrath claims that supernaturalists first have the evidence whilst faith makes for certitude. No, that contradicts our tentative conservation of knowledge in spirit! My Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism make me a fallibilist,however.