<p>And of course, if we had all the answers to these questions of existence, we wouldn’t still have philosophers, or even people who deal with the philosophy of a specific subject. Also, I believe that there’s a school of thought out there that considers philosophy and its subfields to be meaningless and a waste of time, but until EVERYONE believes that, we can still have these discussions in relation to philosophy.</p>
<p>What is that school of thought you mentioned, Sithis?</p>
<p>I don’t recall it specifically, but I’m pretty sure it exists. Perhaps what I meant was “I would not be surprised if there exists…” Maybe not in relation to ALL of philosophy, but much of it. It would mostly consist of pragmatists and pure empiricists. For example, people who would be likely to say “There is no point in discussing the grand philosophical ideas of the universe unless they help the human species,” or, “trying to come up with ideas that can’t be empirically proven is utterly meaningless.” Science itself was originally part of philosophy, but broke apart from it and became its own field when the naturalists decided that empiricism is the only valid epistemology and didn’t care for the opinion of their peers who thought otherwise.</p>
<p>Also, I found a good quote from wikipedia that explains my position better:</p>
<p>“there are basic philosophical assumptions implicit at the foundation of science — namely, 1) that reality is objective and consistent, 2) that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and 3) that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are based in naturalism, critical rationalism, and instrumentalism, within which science is done.”</p>
<p>thanks for enlightening me, guys.</p>
<p>now i know, that “when deciding what assumptions to take i just pick the ones i like the most”. i have secretly liked the idea that santa exists. i now shall assume that santa exists, and therefore can validly conclude that santa exists. doing this is just as ‘valid’ as assuming god exists who dictated absolute morality.</p>
<p>now i also know that “electricity & the age of the earth are only facts once you have a few assumptions.” science is based on just another assumption, and “electricity only exists as defined by science”. thus electricity may not actually exist, but i will continue to use it to type away on this computer… which only exists “as defined by science” too.</p>
<p>and i also know that an independent, absolute morality needs not be supported with evidence. if you assume it exists, it’s ‘valid’ to conclude there is one.</p>
<p>finally, i now know that “science has explained things adequately based on the criteria of science, no more.” there is nothing we can know without assuming, and therefore we cannot know Absolute Fact, if there is any. a mere human such as i cannot know as absolute ‘fact’ that if i jump off the world trade center and land headfirst on the concrete pavement i would die—that is just conclusions by physics and biology which are based on assumptions.</p>
<p>meanwhile, i will consult my horoscope which i have also assumed to be true (since it has been trusted by people for thousands of years, and has explained things adequately as defined by astrology) and proceed to watch Dr Mehmet Oz on Oprah and listen to his ideas on Reiki, Energy Healing—which, according to science, is complete bollocks—but are actually not provably wrong, and only dismissed by the close-mindedness of scientific people that conclude astrology, life energy, ESP, and other things not supported by evidence do not exist.</p>
<p>i will be looking forward to get presents from santa on christmas, who will be working by the hands of my parents to give me presents.</p>
<p>thank you guys.</p>
<p>You are absolutlely welcome.</p>
<p>lol pkmntrainerharry, you are unable to defend the One True Ideology with reason, so now you resort to grandstanding. you are still saying a lot things that we aren’t arguing for, and actually have rebutted for you, but it is easier for you to operate this way.</p>
<p>i really like what some random dude on the internet said about the views you hold:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you can believe in santa & astrology, but you can’t hope to be consistent if you also put stock in the scientific method. santa & astrology make claims that can be verified by science. this is unlike the question of whether morality is absolute or relative, which isn’t something that can be verified by science. (you attempted to do it, but you gave up and failed.) </p>
<p>we’ve talked about this before . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, when you put stock in objects, ideas that are concordant with observation, you’ll be able to observe those things.</p>
<p>we’ve talked about this before . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes. and i think that this is all that you can do . . .</p>
<p>we’ve talked about this before . . .</p>
<p>i have given up on science. science is just a belief. i choose to believe in santa & astrology.</p>
<p>and at the core of astrology is the idea that there is an absolute fate that the universe determines. that cannot be verified by science.</p>
<p>thus i have become One who is consistent and hold views that are valid.</p>
<p>Oh, you don’t have to give up on science because it’s just a methodology/system and not a means of philosophical enquiry. Just recognize it for what it is. Of course, if you demand to have some system that allows for complete and total understanding of the universe and everything, you’re out of luck (unless you figure out how to become omniscient, in which case, please let me know how you did it).</p>
<p>Now, stop with the sarcastic rhetoric, would you please?</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, the purpose of this, at least for my part, was never to “enlighten” you. If anything, it was to do the opposite–to cast doubt in your mind and make you question what you believe and why. To cast your mind back into darkness, so to speak.</p>
<p>nah. if the conclusion of philosophical inquiry puts astrology and science—while mutually exclusive—on equal grounds of validity, perhaps i would conclude it is meaningless and a waste of time, after all.</p>
<p>of course i would not be able to prove that philosophically, but to my baseless belief, it is painfully obvious that scientific method is more true, factual, and authoritative than the “astrological method”.</p>
<p>i will concede that, philosophically, i was wrong that proving anything wrong is possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>on equal grounds of validity doesn’t really mean anything. these different sets of assumptions aren’t valid or not valid. they just are. it isn’t a very deep fact to say that an assumption follows from itself. i think a better way of what you are trying to say is ‘are different methodologies.’</p>
<p>however, if astrology starts making predictions that can be verified by observation (it does, if i’m not mistaken), and those predictions are not what you observe, then you have to throw out your senses as a means of gathering information about things, if you want to have logical consistency.</p>
<p>i think you are right–i can’t compell you to put stock in the scientific method & the observable world or believe in an absolute or relative morality by reason alone. that’s a decision you have to make yourself. i think that that decision is one you make on whether you like it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it’s possible to prove things to be false but this happens only within a shared set of assumptions between you & another person.</p>
<p>if you mean what i think you mean, thanks for admitting this. this has been my goal of this discussion. you too see the world through the lens of your pet ideology. people with different ideologies aren’t necessarily poor thinkers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am very much a believer in the methods of science. And indeed, scientific inquiry does play a role in our judging the success of ethical philosophy. Not exercising scientific inquiry when it’s naturally the most direct approach to many things is foolish. </p>
<p>I really think you should read back over my posts - the notion of a God and assuming one exists is a way some people (religious ones) conceptualize many things (e.g. absolute, infinite love). Maybe you would hate mathematicians, because when we don’t find an object in existence, we just make a new definition. Can you see an infinitely long line of real numbers really? No, but you assume it exists as a reference point, and are fine saying you can conclude valid things about it by chopping it up into meaningful pieces in your head.</p>
<p>When people make claims about, say, observable phenomena though, and science leads us to many counterarguments, then of course we must acknowledge the claims are sketchy. </p>
<p>As Sithis states, and as I will emphasize, things are more difficult to validly conclude than one may expect, and that doesn’t mean you assume everything is just as valid. Rather, it demands that one must be mindful of the various things which can be used to promote any kind of understanding.</p>
<p>I really think you’re underestimating how much you probably agree with what I [and others] are saying. Goodness knows a bunch of us are likely math/science people anyway.</p>
<p>I’m not reading this whole topic, but:</p>
<p>Science is a tool. It provides no human meaning. Only answers about the physical world. A life dedicated entirely to science is devoid of meaning, just as a life dedicated entirely to philosophical thought is devoid of reason and objectivity.</p>
<p>TomServo: Not really a legitimate comparison. The rules of Kashrut only apply to Jews, so we don’t expect anyone else to abide by them. According to Jewish law, it’s fine and dandy for a Christian to eat lobster. And, given that Jews don’t proselytize, even an ultra-orthodox Jew would never try to convince a Christian to put down the shrimp cocktail and convert. </p>
<p>pkmntrainer: No, it’s fine for you to eat shellfish as long as you’re not Jewish. In fact, only the really basic moral laws (read: don’t murder anyone) apply to non-Jews. That means, according to Jewish tradition, that if you’re a non-Jew and a decent human being, you’re set for the afterlife.</p>
<p>Sometimes I can’t help but wonder how hilarious these threads are becoming.</p>