Should science be only for atheists

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by yaracuy, Mar 9, 2011.

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    How does this cause us to abandon the fundamental supposition that the universe is physically real and that the scientific method is useful in uncovering certain qualities of that physical reality? Surely you aren't really suggesting that physical reality is nothing more than an illusion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    are you suggesting that the words "reality" and "empirical" are synonymous?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That wasn't my intent. Do you believe that physical reality is in fact real?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Sure, but in an ontological sense, there are other things that are more real. IOW due to material nature ceasing to exist (or hold form) it has an inferior nature, and hence disciplines of knowledge that deal exclusively with it are also similarly inferior in nature.
     
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    But I would imagine that at least as far as physical reality is concerned, you do accept that the scientific method is useful in describing (or at least approximating) physical phenomena?
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Sure.

    Tacit Language, empiricism, sense perception

    These things work well together.

    Explicit Language, the macro/microcosm however = no
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    And so all the more an ultimate composite complexity of Being cannot be first.

    All you have to do is show how such a Being can be.

    You don't even have to show how it planned and created everything else.

    What's so tough about that?
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    It is a system and so it would be dependent on its past and sub parts, etc, which would have to come before, long before. Simplicity precedes complexity. In their rush to model God upon humans, this kind of problem was forgotten.

    The being cannot exist, as proved by self-contradiction.

    Look to the future and the more complex for a higher mind, not to the past and the simple. Complete wrong direction. As opposite and wrong as could be, No contest. No cigar. not even close.
     
  12. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Would you agree that the scientific method is capable of producing results that are verifiable (through reproducible experiments for example) by other scientists and that the scientific community can therefore form a valid consensus about certain physical phenomena? Would you further agree that the scientific method is the most effective tool that we have at our disposal in determining the nature (at least as far as we can comprehend that nature) of the physical world?
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I think he understands that part of epistemology very well, but there may be something else.


    I'll say there is an additional part, necessary at all stages, and especially before the first: mutual trust and respect between the teacher and the student.

    For many people, this is not only absent, but they are expected to get by without it altogether.

    When I ask a million "Yes, but how do you know ...?" this is actually indicative of an interpersonal issue with my teacher ...


    I've been reading up on epistemic autonomy. To my surprise, many of those fancy philosophy professors conclude that trust plays an important, even most important role in epistemological practice ...
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    No problem with this but when you say ....


    ....I guess this brings us to the break down implicit in all knowledge systems that rely solely on tacit terms.

    IOW if the senses are contextualized by the "nature of the physical world" it cannot examine it any more than one can "see what one is seeing with".

    For instance you can point to your hand and break it down into components and categories but at a certain point the act or defining it breaks down. The same goes if you attempt to categorize the universe.

    IOW its characteristic of empiricism that it has no scope beyond a mere metonymic slice of the nature of the physical world, so its an ineffective tool for defining it.
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    why?
    Because you cannot be first?
    :shrug:
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I guess that comes in at the point of application.

    Its what distinguishes an atheist from a theist since both could technically work out of the same theoretical base (a better example is the mayavadi vs Vaisnava dialogue since the chances of encountering such a singularity of theory between conflicting views is not likely on sci)
     
  17. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I asked you if you agreed that it was the most effective tool that we have for understanding various physical phenomena. Is it?
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    for as long as it doesn't exceed the parameters of tacit language, sure.

    IOW empiricism works perfectly fine for crossing the street, but it is perfectly useless for discussing the origins of the universe etc

    IOW it doesn't work nearly half as well for delineating the "physical" aspects that contextualize the workings of the senses (ie the universe, consciousness, etc) .
     
  19. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Quantum computing wouldn't be possible unless superposition and entanglement were real features of the quantum world. So in this case we have very good reason for believing that quantum mechanics has provided a true account of some of the physical phenomena of the microscopic world. So your assertion that we should never be explicit really wouldn't carry much weight at all among those who find technological applications for specific knowledge gained through the scientific method.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2011
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I have to disagree.
    To even just learn the theory, there must be some measure of trust and respect.
    Otherwise, the distrust and the disrespect will skew one's learning (such as by focusing on learning only those parts of the theory that make it seem dismissable).

    (I am a firm believer that logical fallacies are mainly committed due to ill will.)
     

Share This Page