more such extraordinary scenarios would at least make methodological supernaturalism the first choice methodology in Science (further one can argue that many such extraordinary violations could be seen as corroborating the existence of some sort of Creator - existing from eternity - in such a way that we can even talk of a provisional truth; of course, as anyone minimally accustomed with Philosophy knows well, defining knowledge does not require epistemic certainty).
Further, these messages invite us to ask it questions, including problems that can be shown mathematically to require for their solution far more computational resources than are, according to our best estimates, available in the universe. We then receive verifiable answers to these questions in ten minutes". This scenario does not corroborate clearly the God hypothesis (if confirmed) but it is enough extraordinary to put methodological supernaturalism on a par with methodological naturalism;
@philsci1 David Hume said... "There is No such thing as the Supernatural... there is only the Natural World and Human Ignorance trying to explain it".
Example; look at Lighting... earlier in Human understanding... we attributed Lighting to Zeus. That explanation offered a lot but provided little... much like Religion... offers everything but provides nothing.
Science can explain both HOW Lighting occurs and How the Universe got here... without the need for the Supernatural.
@aaronstately Science HAS provided a working Paradigm... that is in use now and until someone comes up with a better one. To think that Science has NOT provided the How Paradigm... is ignorant of Human Epistemic Knowledge.
@Redshift313 Well if a paradigm does explain the origin of the universe....could you share this with me because i was not aware science had come to know how the universe came into being? also there is a thing called a Paradigm shift... So not even the paradigm it self is safe from change and correction.
I really can not believe you think science has the answer to how the universe got here? ..are you for real?
Yet one can much more easily conceive situations when methodological supernaturalism could become the first choice methodology in Science. For example Dembsky "asks us to suppose that astronomers discover a pulsar billions of light years from earth, the pulses of which signal English messages in Morse code.
In spite of those who see an 'agnostic' (in the strong sense) science God is at least indirectly confirmable via his actions in Nature, providing extraordinary, objective, evidence of course. Now it is indeed hard to make a clear difference between genuine supernatural interventions and (still) unknown natural causes when strong violations of the known laws of physics are observed (although I am not so sure that this demarcation is impossible).
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Science itself is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via this limited view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
@WILLTHEWGMAN Science doesn't rely on the senses alone but also on reason and logic. All scientists are aware that appearances are deceiving. You are not saying anything new!
Cont>: Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition to a truth seeking method and just as dogmatic and limited as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this regard philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proved it's own mother a myth!
@WILLTHEWGMAN There may be some dogmatics who blindly believe in scientism no doubt but this does not make your argument less of a strawman. Actually good science always involve a healthy dose of fallibilism (unlike religions), including a recognition that there are some fundamental philosophical assumtions at its basis. On the other hand however science, fallible as it is, proved nonetheless to be so far our best 'tool' to make sense of facts...not intuition or metaphysics...
At the heart of science is materialism which leads to a denial of human free-will in choice as no more than biochemical illusion and mere determinism but human choice in actions can't be predicted by any law of nature. It's self-evident that we make choices and our actions are free within our abilities and all justice systems foundations are build on the fact that we have individually culpable for our actions. How do you account for free-will? Is science truth but equality made-up?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Materialism (more generally physicalism) is at the basis of some atheist worldviews not science. Science still has at the basis methodological naturalism (and a weak form of realism but rather heuristically) and it is fully open to supernaturalism, idealism and so on provided extraordinary evidence of course. As for free-will science do not really deny it at this time. Still there are good reasons to believe that it is at least severely restricted.
@philsci1 I don't think metaphysics exists for the same purpose as science. Science only looks at the factical. I think I'm using the right word here, but I'm not sure. I'm curious to hear your opinion on the reasons for metaphysics in comparison to the sciences.
@alifeofreason More likely they came from science worshippers who believe that reason/science is objective, that they have access to indubitable truth, that everything has a scientific explanation
Since the 17th century there has been a great number of highly influential educated people who were religious in a certain way, from Descartes and Hegel to Cantor, Planck, Eliot, Chesterton and Heidegger or Kripke and Putnam himself.
Magee says that since the 17th century there has been a spectacular decline of religion, especially among educated people. I am not familiar with general statistics that concern relation between educated people and their religious preferences but it seems to me that among highly influential educated people there has not been a spectacular decline of religion, a relative decline for surely but I would not call it a spectacular one.
“Truth” is the foundation to philosophy: John Locke was close with “Property,” Jefferson got closer with “pursuit of Happiness,” The key to all Life is: pursuit of Objectives. We may generalize Jefferson when “Happiness” is viewed as a metaphor of some positive feedback after an accomplished Objective. When using such logic, this principle becomes universal to all Life, from bacteria to humans, to social systems; hence the philosophical Objective, of “Truth.” See my channel video.
If you are interested in philosophy, check out this site I found dedicated to revealing the truth of life. Search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Pass it on to everyone who you think might be interested.
@alexnewby Not really. Putnam is a pragmatist. He thinks the concept of "Truth" can be replaced by "warrant or "justification." Therefore I would not call him a realist. However, unlike Richard Rorty, he does not thing that justification can be considered culturally relative. The postmodernists tend to say that it is, in my view.
What we need is a philosophy of the psychology of science and scientists. Philosophy is not enough. Why do we believe what we believe? How do we come to suppose scientific results are infallible? or that the way scientists perceive the world is the best way to perceive the world? Inertial Capacity (IC) = 4Pi Area / c-squared, where IC is mass, area is power, and c is the perimeter length of any plane geometrical figure.
Sir, in your introduction, you have glaringly omitted the most important fundamental concept in all of Plato's Republic, and that is "Hey you stupid son of a bitch, I NEVER called your house!!!"
@LeetVajda Oh I know; no need to patronize. I just thought it was funny because it sounds like he says "cunt", which is a vulgar name for the female genitalia. Do you get it?
Well this is really rather interesting :) I'm glad I can finally mix my love of looking at the world from different perspetives, listening to intelligent people debate and watching things on youtube into one little package hahah
I thought it was so cool at the end when he talks about the middle age man and how he would look "up" at the stars and how every person "sees" the world differently. I mean we allready knew that but using an example to prove it I found very neat :D
Judging from this video: There is a contribution of the mind to scientific reality. But if there is no mind/body distinction, as such, Putnam's is a pickwickean sense of 'mind'. The notion of the mental in the absence of the subjective suggests that the contribution of the mind to science has yet to be clearly stated inasmuch as what the "mind" is that DOES the contributing is uncertain. The functionalists, Putnam at least at one point, want their cake and eat it too. Neat trick.
Let's say I find it weird enough you follow me around on the internet Jack, and you've sufficiently shown I don't even need to address you: you'll answer anyway. I now realize that your username ACTUALLY reflects on a sociopathic mindset, as has become obvious through our intercourse and the countless horrified comments on your channel by people flipping at you. Don't be a freako Jack.
He must think I'm some wretched prostitute in a foggy London night... Anyway. It's rather amusing that I'm being accused of being a PAID TOOL of the church, paid to discredit science on a Putnam forum with 61,000 hits in 2 years. I'd say he has a lot of imagination, or perhaps he's projecting his own situation in a demonic inversion of truth, since HE operates on a million+ hits anti-creationist forum in an organized, militia-like fashion. A rather dark figure, not unsavable though...
@suddenlyitsobvious: The succes of science has nothing to do with its pervasiness in society but is rather explanatory and predictive succes. This cannot 'just as easily signify that foundational errors are being justifed with more errors'. Quite the contrary, the succes of science clearly shows that the foundations on which science lies are the right ones.
"anyone know what year this interview was taken?"
Considering Putnam's hair, must have been around the mid 80s. The 80s were all about hair volume, and even though Putty is balding you can see he's trying...
There's a big conceptual problem in what Putnam says at 3.30:
the progress of science looks like a crossword puzzle and things get added all the time.
the fact that MORE and MORE things are being added in an exponential progression can just as easily signify that foundational errors are being justified with more errors in a runaway train process that has become quite insane.
Science is a successful institution? Only in terms of its pervasiveness in society, but so is cancer...
@suddenlyitsobvious@suddenlyitsobvious Scientific theories that are found to be inconsistent with evidence and cannot be fixed are thrown out. E. g., heliocentric view of the universe, steady-state theory, the 'plum pudding' model of the atom to name a few.
Is science like "cancer," only being pervasive and having no other benefit? Perhaps you do not use the internet, or would forgo access to modern medicine.
Hello, science-believer. Have you really processed the implications of your own comment? Consider the following statement by Einstein:
"This is the reason why all attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are in accordance with general relativity from the beginning. This situation makes it difficult to use our empirical knowledge, however comprehensive,in looking for the fundamental concepts and ...
... and it forces us to apply free speculation to a much greater extent than is presently assumed by most physicists."
He has simply made a choice to make a worldview work.
You see Xenon, at the foundational levels, there really are no true claims to anything even slightly resembling an EMPIRICAL type of investigation. Scientists are confined within the boundaries of a PARADIGM, based on speculation and theory, on assumption.
Of course, this will lead to certain RESULTS. However, EVERY ACTION, EVERY INVESTIGATION leads to results. Self fulfilling prophecies can and are then considered proof/evidence,when they merely show that what was found was what onewanted to find in the first place.
The resulting hypercomplexity to the point of supreme unintelligibility and decades of stagnation in many fields, not to mention constant disavowals of the "contributions" of foundational "fathers" of science ...
...like Newton, or even "Freud", or basically any dead or even old scifi hotshot, rather indicates it's all wrong all the time.
Admitting it was Newton producing gravity while simultaneously positing relativity -and Newton's oblivion to it- puts science before rather strange predicaments, as does virtually all of micro/quantum physics, that shows that the laws our cosmogony are based upon are untenable.
Thus yes, indeed what does the falling apple show but ...
...it's density in relation to the medium it is moving through?
Moving forwards in a chomskyest fuite en avant, safeguarding everything that's been edified on a flawed foundation while simultaneously disavowing that same foundation is another instance of orwellian-type doublethink.
It is correctly assumed the masses won't catch on, since they are kept off premises by hypercomplexity and materialistic priorities that intimidate them into disengaging from...
Yes, science has made clever machines. Where understanding of life and life-processes comes into the picture, it can be argued that it has failed MISERABLY...
@suddenlyitsobvious Yes, the conceptual foundations of science may pose philosophical problems. So do many things, like induction or the idea that the outside world exists. But do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or not? Science does not yet give a satisfactory answer to all questions, but what do you have that does?
Point is my dear friend that science is edified on metaphysical assumptions while simultaneously pretending to "objectivity" which boils down to a con, not to mention interested elite interference in the process at all levels. Just think of all those Royal Societies. The entire sad endeavour is hierarchically
controlled and I daresay, quite corrupt. To give but a simple illustration, how the hell do you think a climate scientist NOT abiding by the "human produced ...
@suddenlyitsobvious Anyone who disputes the value or truth of modern science has the burden of answering two questions:
1. Why is science able to make such extraordinary accurate predictions? Why can't a tribal shaman help me make a space shuttle?
2. Has science improved not improved our lives? When you have a life-threatening illness, would you turn down modern medicine? Why do you use a computer, instead of living as the Amish do?
Your vitriol makes no sense if you can't address these 2 pts
...produced CO2 = global warming" narrative gets funding today?
Answer: he DOESN'T get grants, although some exceptions may exist. There are numerous dynamics interfering with this GOD of "objectivity", of this superbly, propagandistically proclaimed glorious empiricism that is constantly being trumpeted and propagandized and in reality represents a true religion.
Anyway, let's look at your 2 questions. First of all, the burden
ACCURATE PREDICTIONS? about WHAT?!? Fact is EVERYTHING gets changed all the time. Just look at how often the distance sun-earth was changed since the positing of the heliocentric MODEL.
Really: WHAT accurate prediction? Is there ANYTHING AT ALL that can even pretend to accuracy when it's already certain that one generation from now, everything we know today will have be invalidated AGAIN?
In answering this question, people usually compare to the Middle Ages when people were dying like rats to trumpet the accomplishments of modern medicine and what not.
Fact is, people were STARVING, treated like animals, kept in a hand to mouth mindframe by oppressive elites.
Must we compare to THAT? Do you think traditional, natural peoples on other continents were doing badly? I suggest they had wonderful lives and ...
According to the WHO cancer was responsible for 13% of deaths in 2007. Not to mention that the older you get the greater your chance for cancer, those telomeres tend to wear out after a lifetime of replication.
"I would LOVE to live in an Amish type society"
Then go for it, though even they generally make use of modern medicine these days.
Horrors like chemo? As ugly a method as chemotherapy is, it's far more effective than doing nothing, millions of people owe their lives to chemotherapy. But of course if they all die it's a small price to pay for your cult not losing out to modernity and human compassion. How very selfish.
...picture is pretty bleak I find, not to say catastrophic.
I have 1 machine: a computer. Sue me. YES, I live in this world also.
I would LOVE to live in an Amish type society, or a natural communities type society, but considering the context, it's not realistic and doing it alone doesn't work.
We're HERE now, not in 1670.
The Amish unfortunately appear to be too determined by a theocratic, authoritatively controlled mindset that would never work for me...
Established ideas in science are always subject to questioning. The very fact that some scientific ideas are eventually disproven shows that science is a process open to correction and having a basis in objectivity.
Science is quite hierarchical, just like all of our other institutions. Science is not perfectly objective. But apparently, you know nothing about science and are considerably out of touch with reality. That's enough.
Admittedly, science is able to make rather clever machines. Where life comes into the picture it hasn't been too successful at all I find.
Your typical line of reasoning that science's constant modifications indicate a self-corrective factor is rather weak if you fail to take the consequences about what it says about flawed foundations. You may of course assume whatever you
wish about my knowledge and connecteness with reality. People often get pricky when science is questioned.
@xenon000001 He is repeating the exact same drivel on another page, after having it conclusively disproven. This means he is spreading this sinister bilge while knowing it to be untrue, meaning he's a liar, a tool of his church. Unquestioning believers like him think lies are excused if they do it for their supreme and wrothful tyrant who conveniently lives in the sky and is invisible.
"He is repeating the exact same drivel on another page,"
The page he's referring to is "Why do people laugh a creationists 1"
This page has been squatted by ACTUAL satanic users organized in a system to discredit christians. They include usernames like The Hateful Dead, JeezusPleezus, ProfessorSatan666 etc and basically wellcome whatever is dark, under the guise of a love for "scientific objectivity". VERY instructive and rather ALARMING. Brownshirts of scifi atheism...
The motion of the planets? I take it you BELIEVE the moon landing took place and will accuse those who exert a minimum of critical thinking, who have had the guts of doing their homework, of wearing tinfoil hats?
You are a BELIEVER who thinks he knows. Quite frankly I find it STUNNING that people can be such suckers that they can't even figure out they're being taken for a ride. It is sooooo obvious. If you dare question authority that is...But no, you trust NASA. Pfft...
Which conspiracy theorists never seem to do. People ridicule you because you're ridiculous. I notice you never bring evidence to bear in your criticism, probably because you simply swallow whatever koolaid your cult passes you.
Jack, are you sure what you are doing, coming out of your den all by yourself without your fellow-satanists, your sinister fanbase, at your back and call to applaud you?
I'm done with this thread so don't bother, and it was interesting to talk to some science atheists who DON'T have morbid/violent usernames for a change.
Your neverending efforts to debunk whatever I might say appear rather indicative of a true obsession with me. Do you LOVE me or HATE me? Get a life.
@suddenlyitsobvious You seem to think that i both worship, and keep company with people who do worship the mythical being known as "satan". I believe in no supernatural entities, Satan is no more real than the tooth fairy, Zeus, or the God christians so fervently believe in.
I'm sure you'd very much like that to be the case. Unfortunately for you the answer is considerably more simple. I googled your argument to see if you were copying and pasting them, a standard practice considering that creationists rarely use their own material. And it turned up this page, where you're spewing the same tripe you are on another page. Are you being paid to peddle snake oil?
...for me. Though I don't know them well, their reliance and wholesome techniques and ways of living in itself certainly do have major advantages... We don't have to pick an already existing model though as an alternative. (end)
@suddenlyitsobvious Science does not make accurate predictions? Really? That's a new one. Do you think an intricate system such as a computer or a space shuttle is built by fumbling in the dark? They work because our predictions based on the laws of mechanics and electronics are accurate. Have you ever flown in an airplane? If so, then you placed your faith in science's ability to predict, based on mechanics, aerodynamics etc.
@zeetvdell I doubt it. I think at worst, it might have been a burp or a reflex of some sort. In addition, Putnam has a peculiar tick when he speaks---this looks like it's a suppressed yawn, but it isn't. It is also seen in Csciery's film on the Hilbert problem in which Putnam speaks.
606JJ The coordination of science and religion with the truth of reality - the COSAR Principle - A Revelatory Proposition is detailed in Up Close and Personal with The Urantia Book - Expanded Edition. Hilary will appreciate this work. Those that are thirsty for truth will want to explore further
Putnam's demonstration, at the end of the clip, of Man's bringing a "human contribution" to truth, via his example of color vision, is flawed, in that he posits the physiological workings of the eye as being external to the physical world. Surely, the "human Contribution" spoken of here is disembodied consciousness, or mind - but the eye is independent of these implied incorporeal entities - a clear contradiction. Perhaps he clarifies in the next segment...
@lourak I don't think Putnam was referring to incorporal entities such as the 'disembodied cosnciousness', but of some high-level psychophisiological elements (memory, association, expectation) which do affect vision. Maybe it's not correct speaking of the 'eye' in a strict sense, but of the so-called 'theory-laden character' of observation (a massive topic in philosophy of science and epistemology).
Thank you for this very interesting and mind-provoking presentation. I enjoyed my listen to this intriguing interview. I learned a lot. And here I am thinking that the Scientific Method is alive and well. Oh, my! Big applause.
@mrprytania LOL...hey the two can exist happily together. After all most if not all great theory is born through observation of living beings,other than ourselves(the world is a living organism).
Hopefully you get a kick out of the Monty Python Philosopher football...now that is humorous.
@mrprytania Ok, internal realism may be more interesting than lolcats, but it is much more philosophically debated. I would like to see some deep reflections nyamcat and less on set theory or in copenhagen interpretation...
i disagree . its ok to say i dont kno but becuz mysticism is interpretive evil ppl have been able to abuse power by saying they must do evil as gods will. dont use condoms, believe or go to hell. we must burn her alive cuz shes a witch. science n math has brought many great things along with the bomb yes, but also enlightenment philosophy. that we dont burn ppl as witchs that ur not guilty when ur born. lifes hard enuf without all that baggage
Doing real philosophy well is very, very difficult. I think that alone explains your attitude (although I am mostly guessing at what you even mean). If philosophy had taken your "right turn", I imagine philosophy would suddenly seem much easier.
Laplace's deterministic demon was withered away by the angel of chaos. Then they go on to talk about the Noumenon that kant established (things as they are in themselves) and the Phenomenon( things in how we perceive them). This was tremedously influential, and even though most philsoophers in science are scientific realists, his influence can even be seen in Einstein. Einstein said we will never know the true nature of reality, which is completely true, science is limited.
The guy is making the assumption that it is science that has caused the decline of religious belief. Though there is a corellation, it is not a causation. Completely fallacious statement, especially because science has no say nor attempts to say if there is a God or not.
Science holds to methdological naturalism not METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM. Though one thing seperates them, there is a large difference. It's as different as a monotheist is from an Atheist.
Would you agree that scientific explanations renders religious explanations obsolete ? And that it may cause a person to abandon religious explanations, thus a decline of religious belief ?
Religious explanation? Define that, religion makes no exaplantion of natural phenomenon, it doesn't even try to. Religious statements are spiritual statements not statements of the physical.
Ever hear of fallacy of composition? Yeah, religion has no say in natural phenomenon. If you think it does, then you're akin to this logical fallacy. Furthermore, the decline of religious belief has nothing to do with Science, and when I say nothing, I mean nothing. In fact it's opposite.
Religious explanations such as : Earthquakes, storms, famines and other disasters were and are by some explained as manifestations of God or gods wrath.
Sciences provide alternative explanations to disasters. Instead of being explained by the wrath of God or gods, disasters are explained by the mouvement of tectonic plates, cold and warms masses of air, bad agricultural technics, etc.
Yeah, you fail to define religious. Define what religious means, because I don't consider that religious in itself. Saying an Earthquake was God's wrath is not a religious statement, rather a supernatural statement.
Religious statements are always philsoophical or spiritual, never about natural phenomenon. Your definition of religion or religious explanations are completely denied by me and millions of others.
"Instead of being explained by the wrath of God or gods, disasters are explained by the mouvement of tectonic plates"
That's called methdological naturalism, and it itself is a principle of philosophy of science. Guess who brought its modern conception? You guessed it, Christians. the Scholastics, mainly through the work of Jean Buridan, established methdological naturalism into science.
They are such that disagree with your definition of "religious explanations".
#1 Roughly I'd define religion as : a set of belief in supernatural beings and objects (God, gods, demons, angels, karma, heaven, nirvana ...) including rituals and institutions related to those supernatural beings. Do you think it is an acceptable short definition of religion ?
So, I'd say, an explanation involving supernatural beings such as God or gods is a religious explanation.
Yes, that's a reasonable definition if you want to geenralize, but I think it's valid. The thing is that this doesn't logically follow to what you define religious explanation as.
I have already said that religious thought has nothing to do with the physical world, but you keep on commiting the special pleading fallacy that it does. It does not, it has no say on natural phenomenon (at least not Xnity). It only makes metaphysical and philosophical statements, just like Atheism.
Considering the previous definition of religion, imagine person who believes he has to sacrefice a goat or has to pray to please the gods which will in return improve his crops. Would you not say that his understanding of agriculture, his explanation of the possible improvement of his crops rely on religious believes ?
That is superstitious not religious. There's a difference. Religious statements are abotu the nature of God, some relgiious statements maybe superstitious, but not all. To think they all are like this, to do ceirtain examples of such, is both a compositional fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy.
So what you brought up was both fallacious and a red herring.
I'm not quite sure why you keep saying that I commit a composition fallacy. I don't think that all religious statements are about natural phenomenons. But there's lot of religious statements about natural phenomenons. Such as the exemple I gave which rely on and implies a certain conception about the nature of God or gods. It is not only superstitious ; you can't think a sacrefice will please a god if you don't have a conception of the nature of god.
Yes there are a lot, but you're generalizing. Generalizations themselves are fallacies. As for the statement of God created the Universe and the earth. Well, when he created the Universe, he created the laws of physics which govern it. So following out of logical necessity, if God created the Universe, he also created the earth, without denying the methdological naturalistic principle of science.
A statement such as "God created the universe and the earth", is it a religious or a superstitious statement ? Is it or not a statement about both the nature of God and nature itself ? Is it or not a religious explanation of natural phenomenons (the existence of the earth and the creation of the universe) ?
"natural phenomenons (the existence of the earth and the creation of the universe)"
I explained this below briefly. Let me elaborate. Sure, the earth may be natural phenomenon, but it logically follows from the creationof the Universe (so again with the compositonal fallacy). Theorigin of the Universe is not natural phenomenon, simply because when the Universe arose so did the laws of nature which cause natural phenomenon. Nature cannot cause itself....
How am I generalizing ? I don't know that nature comes after the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe itself is a natural phenomenon. Then the religious statement "God created the universe" (let alone the earth, light, living creatures, Adam, Eve etc.), is also, I'd say, a religious explanation of a natural phenomenon.
The Creation of the Universe itslef is natural phenomenon? I'm sorry, but what is your education in science, I'm not trying to come out as a jerk, just curious. The standard cosmological model of today (the Big Bang theory), holds that during one point, the Universe was a hotly dense primordial atom. This atom during the Planck epoch has only 1 fundamentla force, in which all forces (G, EM, WN, SN) were combined.
It was not only combined, but they were numerically equal. They were not proportionally different as we see today during pre-planck epoch. So in other words, nature did not exist. Something caused the Big Bang, whatever cuased it, caused the shift in numerical quantity of the 4 forces, adn their seperation. You claim that the existence of the Universe is natural phenomenon. That is a fallacy, nature did not exist, how can nature create nature? natural phenoemnon is led by nature.
Why would nature begin after the Plank-era ? If it can't be natural how would you call a physical (to not say natural) and deterministic phenomenon occurring "before" or during the Plank-era ?
Not after the Planck epoch. Sorry, I made a mistake there. Nature started existing when the four fundamental forces split. Why is this so? For something to be called natural, it must obey the laws of nature and phsyics, the laws of physics were not set pre-Big Bang era, because the numerical value of the constants were equal. Nature did not exist, and whatever happened was not controlled by natural forces.
Furthermore, why did you mention deterministic? It is not, invariance.
Nature started existing when the fundamental forces split. Ok, but then, what science does study what happenned "before" or during the Plank-era ? Is'nt in the domain of physics ?
What studies pre-Planck era? it would technically belong to physics, but it can't. Science only studies nature and how it works, not its origins. It is not the question of science to understand the origin of nature itself, ratehr only how it works.
Look up "Demarcation" in Philsoophy of science. You have to seperate science from non-science. You can never understand the origin of the Universe scientifically, it's a logical no-no.
I can't be certain if you're wrong. But I'd doubt that the demarcation problem has anything to do with the setting of physical laws during Planck era or post-Planck era. As you say, technically, the studies of pre-Planck era and Planck-era belongs to physics. Are'nt they trying in quantum physics and in string theory to figure out what might happened in the Planck era ? Do you consider them to be pseudo-sciences ?
No, the de-marcation problem has to do with what is called science and what seperates science from non-science. Science can't explain everything, it only explains natural phenomenon.
Yes, they technically would belong to it, but there is a problem, the problem of demarcation, it is beyond the scope of science, due to the lack of there being physical laws and nature itself. As for String Theory, and quantum unification, they only explain after the Planck epoch, not before it.
If you trust no other method by science, then nothing. Human knowledge is limited, the only thing we can do from here is use our reason and logic. It would be philosophy that studies this, but nothing 100% knowable.
Logic and Reason can give us an inductive (not deductive) explanation, and sadly for you, the existence of God is almost always a must. You're better off saying you don't know rather than going into a philosophical debate.
Yourself did a naturalistic description of a singularity in the Planck era, is'nt ? Obtained by a scientific method, is'nt ? Yourself said that the study of Planck era belong technically to physics, right ? Why would it technically belongs to physics IF Planck era cannot be studied scientifically ?
I'm still not convinced by the relevancy of the distinction of Planck and post-Planck as an element of demarcation. Beside, you're the first to make such a demarcation, as far as I know.
Firstly, the description I gave was post-planch epoch, and during the planck epoch itself. I cannot give a natural description pre-planck epoch. Also, it's less than scientific method, because we cannot observe this time period, it is only theoritical.
Isaid it would technically, if science had any say. Furthermore, I was speaking pre-planck epoch. I am not to first to make demarcation from-pre-planck epoch to planck epoch...
I agree that there's certainly a difficulty in obtaining empirical evidences for what occurred during the pre-Planck and during Planck era. It is theoretical indeed (so far, we may never know in the future ...), and yes it imposes some questions about the scientific and epistemic value of these theoretical works. I see your point. What value would you give to these theoretical works if they can't be scientific ?
It is not difficult, it is impossible. You cannot observe nature, when nature itself doesn't exist. Pre-Planck epoch was an era in which nature did not exist yet. As for theoritical works, none say anything about pre-planc epoch, why do you keep assuming this?
You cannot make any theoritical work of nature when nature does not exist during the 0 second to the 1:10^-43 second. There are no theortical works, as for post planck epoch, they are still invalid anyway.
Logic and reason can give us a deductive (not inductive) explanations (perhaps) and hypotheses (certainly).
Sadly, I'd rather say, everyone is better off saying he does'nt know, or he must go back to an epistemological debate. The hypotheses of God as creator can be made, but it is not convincing. To make an hypothese is not the prove an hypothese. Which God, or gods or what force ? Of which know or unknown religion, or what kind of force ? With imagination speculation is easy.
Odd responses on this video once more.
laysampson1231c 1 month ago
more such extraordinary scenarios would at least make methodological supernaturalism the first choice methodology in Science (further one can argue that many such extraordinary violations could be seen as corroborating the existence of some sort of Creator - existing from eternity - in such a way that we can even talk of a provisional truth; of course, as anyone minimally accustomed with Philosophy knows well, defining knowledge does not require epistemic certainty).
philsci1 3 months ago
Further, these messages invite us to ask it questions, including problems that can be shown mathematically to require for their solution far more computational resources than are, according to our best estimates, available in the universe. We then receive verifiable answers to these questions in ten minutes". This scenario does not corroborate clearly the God hypothesis (if confirmed) but it is enough extraordinary to put methodological supernaturalism on a par with methodological naturalism;
philsci1 3 months ago
@philsci1 David Hume said... "There is No such thing as the Supernatural... there is only the Natural World and Human Ignorance trying to explain it".
Example; look at Lighting... earlier in Human understanding... we attributed Lighting to Zeus. That explanation offered a lot but provided little... much like Religion... offers everything but provides nothing.
Science can explain both HOW Lighting occurs and How the Universe got here... without the need for the Supernatural.
Redshift313 2 months ago
@Redshift313 Science so far has not provided the answer to how the universe got here.
And to presume it will is arrogant.
aaronstately 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@aaronstately Science HAS provided a working Paradigm... that is in use now and until someone comes up with a better one. To think that Science has NOT provided the How Paradigm... is ignorant of Human Epistemic Knowledge.
Redshift313 3 weeks ago
@Redshift313 A paradigm is very different from that of a working explanation.
aaronstately 3 weeks ago
@aaronstately A Scientific Theory IS the explanation... a Paradigm the working model.
The Paradigm implies an explanation or at least a cause.
Redshift313 3 weeks ago
@Redshift313 Well if a paradigm does explain the origin of the universe....could you share this with me because i was not aware science had come to know how the universe came into being? also there is a thing called a Paradigm shift... So not even the paradigm it self is safe from change and correction.
I really can not believe you think science has the answer to how the universe got here? ..are you for real?
aaronstately 3 weeks ago
@aaronstately Nope... The Scientific Explanation is a... Secret !!! LOL
If you want absolutes go to Religion !!! LOL
The only aspect of Human Epistemic Knowledge that has NOT changed is 1+1=2...
other then that it's wide open.
Redshift313 3 weeks ago
Yet one can much more easily conceive situations when methodological supernaturalism could become the first choice methodology in Science. For example Dembsky "asks us to suppose that astronomers discover a pulsar billions of light years from earth, the pulses of which signal English messages in Morse code.
philsci1 3 months ago
In spite of those who see an 'agnostic' (in the strong sense) science God is at least indirectly confirmable via his actions in Nature, providing extraordinary, objective, evidence of course. Now it is indeed hard to make a clear difference between genuine supernatural interventions and (still) unknown natural causes when strong violations of the known laws of physics are observed (although I am not so sure that this demarcation is impossible).
philsci1 3 months ago
(continued) Search for Libet's experiments and other subsequent research (for ex. search in Google 'eurekalert Unconscious decisions in the brain').
philsci1 3 months ago
Proof that Putnam's not human: 8:39
TheNuncFluens 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Which couple of idiots disliked this?
jimbopumbapigsticks 5 months ago
hilary has the nicest penis
jargonsucks 5 months ago
@jargonsucks
suck my kiss
GnomesAmok 5 months ago
Science itself is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via this limited view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Science doesn't rely on the senses alone but also on reason and logic. All scientists are aware that appearances are deceiving. You are not saying anything new!
ricomajestic 4 months ago
@ricomajestic
We use reason and logic from are senses alone via science. In philosophy we use reason and logic outside of are 5 senses but not in science!
WILLTHEWGMAN 4 months ago
Cont>: Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition to a truth seeking method and just as dogmatic and limited as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this regard philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proved it's own mother a myth!
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN There may be some dogmatics who blindly believe in scientism no doubt but this does not make your argument less of a strawman. Actually good science always involve a healthy dose of fallibilism (unlike religions), including a recognition that there are some fundamental philosophical assumtions at its basis. On the other hand however science, fallible as it is, proved nonetheless to be so far our best 'tool' to make sense of facts...not intuition or metaphysics...
philsci1 4 months ago
@philsci1
At the heart of science is materialism which leads to a denial of human free-will in choice as no more than biochemical illusion and mere determinism but human choice in actions can't be predicted by any law of nature. It's self-evident that we make choices and our actions are free within our abilities and all justice systems foundations are build on the fact that we have individually culpable for our actions. How do you account for free-will? Is science truth but equality made-up?
WILLTHEWGMAN 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Materialism (more generally physicalism) is at the basis of some atheist worldviews not science. Science still has at the basis methodological naturalism (and a weak form of realism but rather heuristically) and it is fully open to supernaturalism, idealism and so on provided extraordinary evidence of course. As for free-will science do not really deny it at this time. Still there are good reasons to believe that it is at least severely restricted.
philsci1 3 months ago
@philsci1 I don't think metaphysics exists for the same purpose as science. Science only looks at the factical. I think I'm using the right word here, but I'm not sure. I'm curious to hear your opinion on the reasons for metaphysics in comparison to the sciences.
TheDavid2222 3 months ago
2 dislikes? How? It must be the Christian fundamentalists who don't believe in evolution, or that the world is more than 10,000 years old.
alifeofreason 6 months ago
@alifeofreason More likely they came from science worshippers who believe that reason/science is objective, that they have access to indubitable truth, that everything has a scientific explanation
1Eu4ic 6 months ago
@1Eu4ic Haha, nice comment!
alifeofreason 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Politics, Philosophy, Politics
ThinkForums[dot]net
KillKyle712 8 months ago
初めてパトナムの顔みた
its first time i see putnum himself
he looks like a english man not american
painfulsweetness 8 months ago
7:27
FUCK
saintdracula1 8 months ago
why can't they make videos like this now? great discussion
WhereToGoist 9 months ago
Since the 17th century there has been a great number of highly influential educated people who were religious in a certain way, from Descartes and Hegel to Cantor, Planck, Eliot, Chesterton and Heidegger or Kripke and Putnam himself.
278augustin 9 months ago
@278augustin and?
3tangle3 8 months ago
@3tangle3
?
278augustin 8 months ago
Magee says that since the 17th century there has been a spectacular decline of religion, especially among educated people. I am not familiar with general statistics that concern relation between educated people and their religious preferences but it seems to me that among highly influential educated people there has not been a spectacular decline of religion, a relative decline for surely but I would not call it a spectacular one.
278augustin 9 months ago
he doesn't blink!
MrLiteraki 10 months ago
@MrLiteraki The ten seconds I watch after I read you post I saw him blink 5 times. Maybe you and his blinks are synched
TwistedLemniscate 9 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate
i wish they were
MrLiteraki 9 months ago
@MrLiteraki he blinked at 4.15
ivanoschen 8 months ago
Where could I find the whole text of the interview?
mellitaluna 10 months ago
“Truth” is the foundation to philosophy: John Locke was close with “Property,” Jefferson got closer with “pursuit of Happiness,” The key to all Life is: pursuit of Objectives. We may generalize Jefferson when “Happiness” is viewed as a metaphor of some positive feedback after an accomplished Objective. When using such logic, this principle becomes universal to all Life, from bacteria to humans, to social systems; hence the philosophical Objective, of “Truth.” See my channel video.
Mike10four 10 months ago
If you are interested in philosophy, check out this site I found dedicated to revealing the truth of life. Search "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Pass it on to everyone who you think might be interested.
vividDC 10 months ago
thanks soo much!!
MsTrinaa 11 months ago
Beautiful... Is this postmodern? Very interesting, there is this kind of "Lat Wittgensteinian" idea of truth going on here.
alexnewby 11 months ago
@alexnewby Not really. Putnam is a pragmatist. He thinks the concept of "Truth" can be replaced by "warrant or "justification." Therefore I would not call him a realist. However, unlike Richard Rorty, he does not thing that justification can be considered culturally relative. The postmodernists tend to say that it is, in my view.
featheon 10 months ago
almost as if they know just do not nor want to say
consecrates is at foot
afordian 11 months ago
argh, have an exam on the philosophy of science tomorrow :( hope i can think like putnam
theoneandonly1324 1 year ago
What we need is a philosophy of the psychology of science and scientists. Philosophy is not enough. Why do we believe what we believe? How do we come to suppose scientific results are infallible? or that the way scientists perceive the world is the best way to perceive the world? Inertial Capacity (IC) = 4Pi Area / c-squared, where IC is mass, area is power, and c is the perimeter length of any plane geometrical figure.
inertialcapacity 1 year ago
Philosophy of science...could anything be more infuriating???
QueenSemiramis 1 year ago
Sir, in your introduction, you have glaringly omitted the most important fundamental concept in all of Plato's Republic, and that is "Hey you stupid son of a bitch, I NEVER called your house!!!"
Haskanawa72 1 year ago
Philosophy used to be useful, but now is just a bunch of dribble.
griffon727 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@griffon727 oh is it? why do you believe that?
MrSkate4weed 1 year ago
Comment removed
14amn14 1 year ago
thank you for posting this
aramhampson 1 year ago
He pronounces Kant interestingly.
jerryhello100 1 year ago
@jerryhello100
Immanuel Kant was German, and his name is supposed to be pronounced as Putnam did.
LeetVajda 1 year ago
@LeetVajda Oh I know; no need to patronize. I just thought it was funny because it sounds like he says "cunt", which is a vulgar name for the female genitalia. Do you get it?
jerryhello100 1 year ago
@jerryhello100 I get your intent and humor now. just didn't catch that when he said Kant it sounded like 'cunt' to you.
LeetVajda 9 months ago
Well this is really rather interesting :) I'm glad I can finally mix my love of looking at the world from different perspetives, listening to intelligent people debate and watching things on youtube into one little package hahah
I thought it was so cool at the end when he talks about the middle age man and how he would look "up" at the stars and how every person "sees" the world differently. I mean we allready knew that but using an example to prove it I found very neat :D
cristofolon 1 year ago
Judging from this video: There is a contribution of the mind to scientific reality. But if there is no mind/body distinction, as such, Putnam's is a pickwickean sense of 'mind'. The notion of the mental in the absence of the subjective suggests that the contribution of the mind to science has yet to be clearly stated inasmuch as what the "mind" is that DOES the contributing is uncertain. The functionalists, Putnam at least at one point, want their cake and eat it too. Neat trick.
Baynesrb1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the energy revolution!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the energy revolution!
baccaratbargaineq 1 year ago
Let's say I find it weird enough you follow me around on the internet Jack, and you've sufficiently shown I don't even need to address you: you'll answer anyway. I now realize that your username ACTUALLY reflects on a sociopathic mindset, as has become obvious through our intercourse and the countless horrified comments on your channel by people flipping at you. Don't be a freako Jack.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
He must think I'm some wretched prostitute in a foggy London night... Anyway. It's rather amusing that I'm being accused of being a PAID TOOL of the church, paid to discredit science on a Putnam forum with 61,000 hits in 2 years. I'd say he has a lot of imagination, or perhaps he's projecting his own situation in a demonic inversion of truth, since HE operates on a million+ hits anti-creationist forum in an organized, militia-like fashion. A rather dark figure, not unsavable though...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I'd say you are a bit of a coward. I mean if you're going to address someone post in a reply.
"demonic inversion of truth"
So you admit again, in public, that you believe in demons? How quaintly barbaric.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious: The succes of science has nothing to do with its pervasiness in society but is rather explanatory and predictive succes. This cannot 'just as easily signify that foundational errors are being justifed with more errors'. Quite the contrary, the succes of science clearly shows that the foundations on which science lies are the right ones.
Gizmofan1978 1 year ago
anyone know what year this interview was taken?
comradesteve1990 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comradesteve1990
"anyone know what year this interview was taken?"
Considering Putnam's hair, must have been around the mid 80s. The 80s were all about hair volume, and even though Putty is balding you can see he's trying...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
At about 8:35 Putnam's inner Ed Grimley begins to come out. I was expecting him to say, "I must say."
ThaddeusRobe 1 year ago
There's a big conceptual problem in what Putnam says at 3.30:
the progress of science looks like a crossword puzzle and things get added all the time.
the fact that MORE and MORE things are being added in an exponential progression can just as easily signify that foundational errors are being justified with more errors in a runaway train process that has become quite insane.
Science is a successful institution? Only in terms of its pervasiveness in society, but so is cancer...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious @suddenlyitsobvious Scientific theories that are found to be inconsistent with evidence and cannot be fixed are thrown out. E. g., heliocentric view of the universe, steady-state theory, the 'plum pudding' model of the atom to name a few.
Is science like "cancer," only being pervasive and having no other benefit? Perhaps you do not use the internet, or would forgo access to modern medicine.
xenon000001 1 year ago
@xenon000001
Hello, science-believer. Have you really processed the implications of your own comment? Consider the following statement by Einstein:
"This is the reason why all attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are in accordance with general relativity from the beginning. This situation makes it difficult to use our empirical knowledge, however comprehensive,in looking for the fundamental concepts and ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xenon000001
... and it forces us to apply free speculation to a much greater extent than is presently assumed by most physicists."
He has simply made a choice to make a worldview work.
You see Xenon, at the foundational levels, there really are no true claims to anything even slightly resembling an EMPIRICAL type of investigation. Scientists are confined within the boundaries of a PARADIGM, based on speculation and theory, on assumption.
...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xenon000001
Of course, this will lead to certain RESULTS. However, EVERY ACTION, EVERY INVESTIGATION leads to results. Self fulfilling prophecies can and are then considered proof/evidence,when they merely show that what was found was what onewanted to find in the first place.
The resulting hypercomplexity to the point of supreme unintelligibility and decades of stagnation in many fields, not to mention constant disavowals of the "contributions" of foundational "fathers" of science ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...like Newton, or even "Freud", or basically any dead or even old scifi hotshot, rather indicates it's all wrong all the time.
Admitting it was Newton producing gravity while simultaneously positing relativity -and Newton's oblivion to it- puts science before rather strange predicaments, as does virtually all of micro/quantum physics, that shows that the laws our cosmogony are based upon are untenable.
Thus yes, indeed what does the falling apple show but ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...it's density in relation to the medium it is moving through?
Moving forwards in a chomskyest fuite en avant, safeguarding everything that's been edified on a flawed foundation while simultaneously disavowing that same foundation is another instance of orwellian-type doublethink.
It is correctly assumed the masses won't catch on, since they are kept off premises by hypercomplexity and materialistic priorities that intimidate them into disengaging from...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
... in-depth analysis and critical thinking.
Yes, science has made clever machines. Where understanding of life and life-processes comes into the picture, it can be argued that it has failed MISERABLY...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Yes, the conceptual foundations of science may pose philosophical problems. So do many things, like induction or the idea that the outside world exists. But do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or not? Science does not yet give a satisfactory answer to all questions, but what do you have that does?
xenon000001 1 year ago
@xenon000001
Point is my dear friend that science is edified on metaphysical assumptions while simultaneously pretending to "objectivity" which boils down to a con, not to mention interested elite interference in the process at all levels. Just think of all those Royal Societies. The entire sad endeavour is hierarchically
controlled and I daresay, quite corrupt. To give but a simple illustration, how the hell do you think a climate scientist NOT abiding by the "human produced ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Anyone who disputes the value or truth of modern science has the burden of answering two questions:
1. Why is science able to make such extraordinary accurate predictions? Why can't a tribal shaman help me make a space shuttle?
2. Has science improved not improved our lives? When you have a life-threatening illness, would you turn down modern medicine? Why do you use a computer, instead of living as the Amish do?
Your vitriol makes no sense if you can't address these 2 pts
xenon000001 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...produced CO2 = global warming" narrative gets funding today?
Answer: he DOESN'T get grants, although some exceptions may exist. There are numerous dynamics interfering with this GOD of "objectivity", of this superbly, propagandistically proclaimed glorious empiricism that is constantly being trumpeted and propagandized and in reality represents a true religion.
Anyway, let's look at your 2 questions. First of all, the burden
is usually on the CLAIMANT -meaning ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...meaning science- but I'll indulge you.
ACCURATE PREDICTIONS? about WHAT?!? Fact is EVERYTHING gets changed all the time. Just look at how often the distance sun-earth was changed since the positing of the heliocentric MODEL.
Really: WHAT accurate prediction? Is there ANYTHING AT ALL that can even pretend to accuracy when it's already certain that one generation from now, everything we know today will have be invalidated AGAIN?
Your optimism is cute but not very realistic...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...realistic.
2: Has science improved our lives?
In answering this question, people usually compare to the Middle Ages when people were dying like rats to trumpet the accomplishments of modern medicine and what not.
Fact is, people were STARVING, treated like animals, kept in a hand to mouth mindframe by oppressive elites.
Must we compare to THAT? Do you think traditional, natural peoples on other continents were doing badly? I suggest they had wonderful lives and ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...and got to be at least as old as we do today if not much older.
ALL PILLS AND TREATMENTS today are toxic. Just look at horrors like chemo and radiation.
Is THAT science? BARBARIC! EVIL!
Results? Today people have 1 chance in 2 to die of cancer. Schizophrenia? "We don't know."
MS? We don't know. AIDS? Cystic fibrosis etc etc. It's all feeding a pharmacratic dehumanized industry, can't you see?
Sure, there's some clever techniques and technologies, but the overall picture...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious "Today people have 1 chance in 2 to die of cancer"
According to the WHO cancer was responsible for 13% of deaths in 2007. Not to mention that the older you get the greater your chance for cancer, those telomeres tend to wear out after a lifetime of replication.
"I would LOVE to live in an Amish type society"
Then go for it, though even they generally make use of modern medicine these days.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious "ALL PILLS AND TREATMENTS today are toxic"
Horrors like chemo? As ugly a method as chemotherapy is, it's far more effective than doing nothing, millions of people owe their lives to chemotherapy. But of course if they all die it's a small price to pay for your cult not losing out to modernity and human compassion. How very selfish.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...picture is pretty bleak I find, not to say catastrophic.
I have 1 machine: a computer. Sue me. YES, I live in this world also.
I would LOVE to live in an Amish type society, or a natural communities type society, but considering the context, it's not realistic and doing it alone doesn't work.
We're HERE now, not in 1670.
The Amish unfortunately appear to be too determined by a theocratic, authoritatively controlled mindset that would never work for me...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious @suddenlyitsobvious Why can we predict the motion of the planets, or exactly predict the timing of a chemical reaction?
The life expectancy of a hunter-gatherer is about 30 or 40 years. Natural life is great, no?
Yes, today people die of cancer at 70, instead of dying of smallpox or dysentery at 30. Science has failed to abolish death. Oh no!
xenon000001 1 year ago
Established ideas in science are always subject to questioning. The very fact that some scientific ideas are eventually disproven shows that science is a process open to correction and having a basis in objectivity.
Science is quite hierarchical, just like all of our other institutions. Science is not perfectly objective. But apparently, you know nothing about science and are considerably out of touch with reality. That's enough.
xenon000001 1 year ago
@xenon000001
Admittedly, science is able to make rather clever machines. Where life comes into the picture it hasn't been too successful at all I find.
Your typical line of reasoning that science's constant modifications indicate a self-corrective factor is rather weak if you fail to take the consequences about what it says about flawed foundations. You may of course assume whatever you
wish about my knowledge and connecteness with reality. People often get pricky when science is questioned.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
*assume = presume
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001 He is repeating the exact same drivel on another page, after having it conclusively disproven. This means he is spreading this sinister bilge while knowing it to be untrue, meaning he's a liar, a tool of his church. Unquestioning believers like him think lies are excused if they do it for their supreme and wrothful tyrant who conveniently lives in the sky and is invisible.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JACKtheRIPP3R189
"He is repeating the exact same drivel on another page,"
The page he's referring to is "Why do people laugh a creationists 1"
This page has been squatted by ACTUAL satanic users organized in a system to discredit christians. They include usernames like The Hateful Dead, JeezusPleezus, ProfessorSatan666 etc and basically wellcome whatever is dark, under the guise of a love for "scientific objectivity". VERY instructive and rather ALARMING. Brownshirts of scifi atheism...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@xenon000001
The motion of the planets? I take it you BELIEVE the moon landing took place and will accuse those who exert a minimum of critical thinking, who have had the guts of doing their homework, of wearing tinfoil hats?
You are a BELIEVER who thinks he knows. Quite frankly I find it STUNNING that people can be such suckers that they can't even figure out they're being taken for a ride. It is sooooo obvious. If you dare question authority that is...But no, you trust NASA. Pfft...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious "guts of doing their homework"
Which conspiracy theorists never seem to do. People ridicule you because you're ridiculous. I notice you never bring evidence to bear in your criticism, probably because you simply swallow whatever koolaid your cult passes you.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189
Jack, are you sure what you are doing, coming out of your den all by yourself without your fellow-satanists, your sinister fanbase, at your back and call to applaud you?
I'm done with this thread so don't bother, and it was interesting to talk to some science atheists who DON'T have morbid/violent usernames for a change.
Your neverending efforts to debunk whatever I might say appear rather indicative of a true obsession with me. Do you LOVE me or HATE me? Get a life.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious You seem to think that i both worship, and keep company with people who do worship the mythical being known as "satan". I believe in no supernatural entities, Satan is no more real than the tooth fairy, Zeus, or the God christians so fervently believe in.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious "true obsession with me"
I'm sure you'd very much like that to be the case. Unfortunately for you the answer is considerably more simple. I googled your argument to see if you were copying and pasting them, a standard practice considering that creationists rarely use their own material. And it turned up this page, where you're spewing the same tripe you are on another page. Are you being paid to peddle snake oil?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 1 year ago
@xenon000001
...for me. Though I don't know them well, their reliance and wholesome techniques and ways of living in itself certainly do have major advantages... We don't have to pick an already existing model though as an alternative. (end)
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Science does not make accurate predictions? Really? That's a new one. Do you think an intricate system such as a computer or a space shuttle is built by fumbling in the dark? They work because our predictions based on the laws of mechanics and electronics are accurate. Have you ever flown in an airplane? If so, then you placed your faith in science's ability to predict, based on mechanics, aerodynamics etc.
xenon000001 1 year ago
Did Putnam ever write about Marxism?
jimbopumbapigsticks 1 year ago
bruce lee is a philosopher :D
azn456789 1 year ago
this is great stuff
bonjeano 1 year ago
oh here we go... first topic you have to talk about religion don't you?
nazra7 1 year ago
@ 8:40 he stopped himself from yawning
zeetvdell 1 year ago
@zeetvdell I doubt it. I think at worst, it might have been a burp or a reflex of some sort. In addition, Putnam has a peculiar tick when he speaks---this looks like it's a suppressed yawn, but it isn't. It is also seen in Csciery's film on the Hilbert problem in which Putnam speaks.
n080di 1 year ago
@n080di whatever it was , he's funny
zeetvdell 1 year ago
I wish they would teach this to kids in primary school so I don't have to go on repeating it to shocked audiences wherever I go.
I have always put the breaking point with Russel, Whitehead and the Principia Mathematica though, minor point.
How many stars can I give?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
606JJ The coordination of science and religion with the truth of reality - the COSAR Principle - A Revelatory Proposition is detailed in Up Close and Personal with The Urantia Book - Expanded Edition. Hilary will appreciate this work. Those that are thirsty for truth will want to explore further
606JJ 1 year ago
I love the intrigued feeling I get when I listen to Hilary Putnam speak!
lynnzombieee 1 year ago
Thank you so much for these videos. I'm dyslexic so reading a book on the subject would take a great deal of my time.
nambypamby34 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Boring douche.
bostongary 1 year ago
Putnam's demonstration, at the end of the clip, of Man's bringing a "human contribution" to truth, via his example of color vision, is flawed, in that he posits the physiological workings of the eye as being external to the physical world. Surely, the "human Contribution" spoken of here is disembodied consciousness, or mind - but the eye is independent of these implied incorporeal entities - a clear contradiction. Perhaps he clarifies in the next segment...
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak I don't think Putnam was referring to incorporal entities such as the 'disembodied cosnciousness', but of some high-level psychophisiological elements (memory, association, expectation) which do affect vision. Maybe it's not correct speaking of the 'eye' in a strict sense, but of the so-called 'theory-laden character' of observation (a massive topic in philosophy of science and epistemology).
vins1979 1 year ago
Thank you for this very interesting and mind-provoking presentation. I enjoyed my listen to this intriguing interview. I learned a lot. And here I am thinking that the Scientific Method is alive and well. Oh, my! Big applause.
TheTonylearner 1 year ago
"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
i love philosophy <3
818doodooroo 1 year ago 22
@818doodooroo i love philosophy >2
aramhampson 1 year ago
How wonderful to actually see and hear Hilary Putnam since I only read his essays in school YouTube can be more than dumb cat videos.
mrprytania 1 year ago 56
@mrprytania There are plenty of educational videos here. Berkeley, Yale and other universities actually post lectures here.
grits011 1 year ago
@mrprytania Surely when watching "kitten waking up" there is some issue there in philosophy of cognitive science.
Perlustrate 1 year ago
@mrprytania LOL...hey the two can exist happily together. After all most if not all great theory is born through observation of living beings,other than ourselves(the world is a living organism).
Hopefully you get a kick out of the Monty Python Philosopher football...now that is humorous.
katrastrophy 11 months ago
@mrprytania Ok, internal realism may be more interesting than lolcats, but it is much more philosophically debated. I would like to see some deep reflections nyamcat and less on set theory or in copenhagen interpretation...
Zurtroy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
philosophy took a wrong turn when it became mathmatical instead of mystical
almosthuman27 1 year ago
i disagree . its ok to say i dont kno but becuz mysticism is interpretive evil ppl have been able to abuse power by saying they must do evil as gods will. dont use condoms, believe or go to hell. we must burn her alive cuz shes a witch. science n math has brought many great things along with the bomb yes, but also enlightenment philosophy. that we dont burn ppl as witchs that ur not guilty when ur born. lifes hard enuf without all that baggage
adzug 1 year ago
Doing real philosophy well is very, very difficult. I think that alone explains your attitude (although I am mostly guessing at what you even mean). If philosophy had taken your "right turn", I imagine philosophy would suddenly seem much easier.
NathanSHopkins 1 year ago
opposite
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
he looks like Kant
RhiannonoftheSea 1 year ago
Damn I need to read more of Kant!
bananabread119 1 year ago
6:35:
Laplace's deterministic demon was withered away by the angel of chaos. Then they go on to talk about the Noumenon that kant established (things as they are in themselves) and the Phenomenon( things in how we perceive them). This was tremedously influential, and even though most philsoophers in science are scientific realists, his influence can even be seen in Einstein. Einstein said we will never know the true nature of reality, which is completely true, science is limited.
ogirv101 2 years ago
The guy is making the assumption that it is science that has caused the decline of religious belief. Though there is a corellation, it is not a causation. Completely fallacious statement, especially because science has no say nor attempts to say if there is a God or not.
Science holds to methdological naturalism not METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM. Though one thing seperates them, there is a large difference. It's as different as a monotheist is from an Atheist.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Would you agree that scientific explanations renders religious explanations obsolete ? And that it may cause a person to abandon religious explanations, thus a decline of religious belief ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Religious explanation? Define that, religion makes no exaplantion of natural phenomenon, it doesn't even try to. Religious statements are spiritual statements not statements of the physical.
Ever hear of fallacy of composition? Yeah, religion has no say in natural phenomenon. If you think it does, then you're akin to this logical fallacy. Furthermore, the decline of religious belief has nothing to do with Science, and when I say nothing, I mean nothing. In fact it's opposite.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Religious explanations such as : Earthquakes, storms, famines and other disasters were and are by some explained as manifestations of God or gods wrath.
Sciences provide alternative explanations to disasters. Instead of being explained by the wrath of God or gods, disasters are explained by the mouvement of tectonic plates, cold and warms masses of air, bad agricultural technics, etc.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Yeah, you fail to define religious. Define what religious means, because I don't consider that religious in itself. Saying an Earthquake was God's wrath is not a religious statement, rather a supernatural statement.
Religious statements are always philsoophical or spiritual, never about natural phenomenon. Your definition of religion or religious explanations are completely denied by me and millions of others.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
"Instead of being explained by the wrath of God or gods, disasters are explained by the mouvement of tectonic plates"
That's called methdological naturalism, and it itself is a principle of philosophy of science. Guess who brought its modern conception? You guessed it, Christians. the Scholastics, mainly through the work of Jean Buridan, established methdological naturalism into science.
They are such that disagree with your definition of "religious explanations".
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
#1 Roughly I'd define religion as : a set of belief in supernatural beings and objects (God, gods, demons, angels, karma, heaven, nirvana ...) including rituals and institutions related to those supernatural beings. Do you think it is an acceptable short definition of religion ?
So, I'd say, an explanation involving supernatural beings such as God or gods is a religious explanation.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Yes, that's a reasonable definition if you want to geenralize, but I think it's valid. The thing is that this doesn't logically follow to what you define religious explanation as.
I have already said that religious thought has nothing to do with the physical world, but you keep on commiting the special pleading fallacy that it does. It does not, it has no say on natural phenomenon (at least not Xnity). It only makes metaphysical and philosophical statements, just like Atheism.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
Considering the previous definition of religion, imagine person who believes he has to sacrefice a goat or has to pray to please the gods which will in return improve his crops. Would you not say that his understanding of agriculture, his explanation of the possible improvement of his crops rely on religious believes ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
That is superstitious not religious. There's a difference. Religious statements are abotu the nature of God, some relgiious statements maybe superstitious, but not all. To think they all are like this, to do ceirtain examples of such, is both a compositional fallacy and a hasty generalization fallacy.
So what you brought up was both fallacious and a red herring.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
I'm not quite sure why you keep saying that I commit a composition fallacy. I don't think that all religious statements are about natural phenomenons. But there's lot of religious statements about natural phenomenons. Such as the exemple I gave which rely on and implies a certain conception about the nature of God or gods. It is not only superstitious ; you can't think a sacrefice will please a god if you don't have a conception of the nature of god.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Yes there are a lot, but you're generalizing. Generalizations themselves are fallacies. As for the statement of God created the Universe and the earth. Well, when he created the Universe, he created the laws of physics which govern it. So following out of logical necessity, if God created the Universe, he also created the earth, without denying the methdological naturalistic principle of science.
It is not a superstitious statement in itself.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
A statement such as "God created the universe and the earth", is it a religious or a superstitious statement ? Is it or not a statement about both the nature of God and nature itself ? Is it or not a religious explanation of natural phenomenons (the existence of the earth and the creation of the universe) ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
"natural phenomenons (the existence of the earth and the creation of the universe)"
I explained this below briefly. Let me elaborate. Sure, the earth may be natural phenomenon, but it logically follows from the creationof the Universe (so again with the compositonal fallacy). Theorigin of the Universe is not natural phenomenon, simply because when the Universe arose so did the laws of nature which cause natural phenomenon. Nature cannot cause itself....
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
How am I generalizing ? I don't know that nature comes after the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe itself is a natural phenomenon. Then the religious statement "God created the universe" (let alone the earth, light, living creatures, Adam, Eve etc.), is also, I'd say, a religious explanation of a natural phenomenon.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
The Creation of the Universe itslef is natural phenomenon? I'm sorry, but what is your education in science, I'm not trying to come out as a jerk, just curious. The standard cosmological model of today (the Big Bang theory), holds that during one point, the Universe was a hotly dense primordial atom. This atom during the Planck epoch has only 1 fundamentla force, in which all forces (G, EM, WN, SN) were combined.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
It was not only combined, but they were numerically equal. They were not proportionally different as we see today during pre-planck epoch. So in other words, nature did not exist. Something caused the Big Bang, whatever cuased it, caused the shift in numerical quantity of the 4 forces, adn their seperation. You claim that the existence of the Universe is natural phenomenon. That is a fallacy, nature did not exist, how can nature create nature? natural phenoemnon is led by nature.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
Why would nature begin after the Plank-era ? If it can't be natural how would you call a physical (to not say natural) and deterministic phenomenon occurring "before" or during the Plank-era ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Not after the Planck epoch. Sorry, I made a mistake there. Nature started existing when the four fundamental forces split. Why is this so? For something to be called natural, it must obey the laws of nature and phsyics, the laws of physics were not set pre-Big Bang era, because the numerical value of the constants were equal. Nature did not exist, and whatever happened was not controlled by natural forces.
Furthermore, why did you mention deterministic? It is not, invariance.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
Nature started existing when the fundamental forces split. Ok, but then, what science does study what happenned "before" or during the Plank-era ? Is'nt in the domain of physics ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
What studies pre-Planck era? it would technically belong to physics, but it can't. Science only studies nature and how it works, not its origins. It is not the question of science to understand the origin of nature itself, ratehr only how it works.
Look up "Demarcation" in Philsoophy of science. You have to seperate science from non-science. You can never understand the origin of the Universe scientifically, it's a logical no-no.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I can't be certain if you're wrong. But I'd doubt that the demarcation problem has anything to do with the setting of physical laws during Planck era or post-Planck era. As you say, technically, the studies of pre-Planck era and Planck-era belongs to physics. Are'nt they trying in quantum physics and in string theory to figure out what might happened in the Planck era ? Do you consider them to be pseudo-sciences ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
No, the de-marcation problem has to do with what is called science and what seperates science from non-science. Science can't explain everything, it only explains natural phenomenon.
Yes, they technically would belong to it, but there is a problem, the problem of demarcation, it is beyond the scope of science, due to the lack of there being physical laws and nature itself. As for String Theory, and quantum unification, they only explain after the Planck epoch, not before it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
And what would explain phenomenon occurring during and "before" the Planck era if not science ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
If you trust no other method by science, then nothing. Human knowledge is limited, the only thing we can do from here is use our reason and logic. It would be philosophy that studies this, but nothing 100% knowable.
Logic and Reason can give us an inductive (not deductive) explanation, and sadly for you, the existence of God is almost always a must. You're better off saying you don't know rather than going into a philosophical debate.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Yourself did a naturalistic description of a singularity in the Planck era, is'nt ? Obtained by a scientific method, is'nt ? Yourself said that the study of Planck era belong technically to physics, right ? Why would it technically belongs to physics IF Planck era cannot be studied scientifically ?
I'm still not convinced by the relevancy of the distinction of Planck and post-Planck as an element of demarcation. Beside, you're the first to make such a demarcation, as far as I know.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
Firstly, the description I gave was post-planch epoch, and during the planck epoch itself. I cannot give a natural description pre-planck epoch. Also, it's less than scientific method, because we cannot observe this time period, it is only theoritical.
Isaid it would technically, if science had any say. Furthermore, I was speaking pre-planck epoch. I am not to first to make demarcation from-pre-planck epoch to planck epoch...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ ogirv101
I agree that there's certainly a difficulty in obtaining empirical evidences for what occurred during the pre-Planck and during Planck era. It is theoretical indeed (so far, we may never know in the future ...), and yes it imposes some questions about the scientific and epistemic value of these theoretical works. I see your point. What value would you give to these theoretical works if they can't be scientific ?
anarkoFred 2 years ago
@anarkoFred:
It is not difficult, it is impossible. You cannot observe nature, when nature itself doesn't exist. Pre-Planck epoch was an era in which nature did not exist yet. As for theoritical works, none say anything about pre-planc epoch, why do you keep assuming this?
You cannot make any theoritical work of nature when nature does not exist during the 0 second to the 1:10^-43 second. There are no theortical works, as for post planck epoch, they are still invalid anyway.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Logic and reason can give us a deductive (not inductive) explanations (perhaps) and hypotheses (certainly).
Sadly, I'd rather say, everyone is better off saying he does'nt know, or he must go back to an epistemological debate. The hypotheses of God as creator can be made, but it is not convincing. To make an hypothese is not the prove an hypothese. Which God, or gods or what force ? Of which know or unknown religion, or what kind of force ? With imagination speculation is easy.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
exactly
adzug 1 year ago
Post a Text Comment
vn3400 2 years ago
thanks
xostotti 2 years ago
This is absolutely hilarious.
FAVED
redbullhead 2 years ago
Here's what is special about Math - It does not have any intrinsic requirement for Time. There you go! may the force be with you -->
dirtyharree 2 years ago
Putnam errs @ 4:23. It was in fact Oliver Heavisides who cleaned up Maxwell.
TheFlanker35 2 years ago