How could the universe not be infinite? It must have an understanding of what is outside of itself if not. In that case it would at least mean that the "expansion" of space is infinite, if matter is not. But then where would finite matter have come from? It makes much more sense if it were infinite, especially because something more simplistic than time must have existed before the universe exploded.
I think we're using the wrong means to discuss this. What's more simplistic than movement?
There is no question as well as answer of a god. The Reality is Infinity even if there is a vision it is a temporary in the absence of vision also Infinity is there. Those formulas made by human are also temporary because Physics, Chemistry and Biology changes Universally. It is Infinite Conversion human life is a micro part of this Conversion this is Infinite Reaction no one is creator nor destroyer nor controller. Finally this is Infinite Universal Reaction
Scientists are wrong about nothing faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe is destined to surpass light speed , Time to re write the books and laws.
@zestydude87 Well in a way yes, the universe itself may have expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light but it is not exactly a thing to be constrained by that limit. You see space-time is what is expanding. The matter and energy in it obeys the laws of physics and don't travel faster than the speed of light. Nothing to rewrite.
Isn't funny how your god made it so its impossible to find unless I take your word for it and read your special book! Leaving me wide open to be deceived by another man with a different book :( in your book wasn't god speaking to people daily?? Why so shy now?
look at these poor confused intellectuals - by wiriting God out of the equation they dream up all sorts of hypotheses, ask questions that fry the mind and assume the most crazy thing in the end - that the universe always was and then try to sound profound by asking ' who made God?' - absolutely frightening the way they have brainwashed themselves into their inductive premises.
@whiteliketar Writing a "god" into anything to do with reality brings up more questions than answers.How can you expect scientists to "write god into the equation" if theologists can't decide on one a consistent, universally accepted definition of "god". Trust me If ANY scientist could definitively prove a "god's" existence he would be met with accolades. Aside: When have modern scientists ever said that " that the universe always was ". They say the known universe began at the Big bang.
@wyvernlord23 you just don't write God into anything my confused atheist comrade - it is a revelation - faith goes where logic can go no further - it makes sense that the God who is the great I AM - would confuse the crap out of men to figure him out - you want HIM to appear so you can measure him with your ruler and measuring tape whilst HE chose to reveal himself in scripture - I ask again - whose fault is it that you and your confused friends have written him out of the equation>?
@whiteliketar , this is what i hear "you just don´t write God into anything, God chose goat herders from the bronze age; faith goes where logic can go no further, like delusion - It is funny if you know psychology and you hear someone refering to god has the great I AM- God confuses you because you want any valid indication of his existance, but he chose to manifest in a primitive book, and some sandwich that was sold in las vegas, so that´s what you get..
@whiteliketar God must be very schizophrenic because he apparently chose to reveal himself in many scriptures in many religions under many names and sometimes at the same time. They can't all be right since they all damn one another. How are we supposed to even use that as evidence???
@saliverdis just because all matter started at a single point, doesn't mean that space was confined to that point. I'm a layman though, I'm sure someone smarter will come along and correct or confirm.
@saliverdis then what's the end? can you imagine the end? the limit? whats beyond the limit? It gotta be infinite or what's after the limit? It gotta be something!
The farthest we can see with our telescope are the objects in the very early universe whose light has not yet reach us due to its expansion. But there would be an opaque wall of light that bars us from looking beyond the big bang. Thus, if the farthest objects that we could ever see is the opaque wall just after the big bang then it mean the universe is FINITE in spatial dimension not unless we can prove that soace is expanding into empty space which is meaningless. Space expanding into space?
Everything that has a beggining must have an end-this has been shown to be true in every case and on every scale which we can observe.
God, However you choose to define the concept, Is the essence by which everything physical came into being and therefor not subject to the laws of the physical universe.
from what evidence do you assume a creator? the bible is not scientific evidence. Tyson is not a flea he is an astrophyscist and 1 of only 6000 in the world so he is 1 in a million. i think he knows what he is talking about.
At what point in Astrophysics 101 do they go over the "God doesn't exist" material?
At what point did Tyson take the Decades it takes to go through the existing data to make a rational decision on the subject? When did he spend the lifetime it takes to grasp just the Christian bible in it's totality, much less the Koran?
What Tyson is doing is so unscientific it's pathetic. Where is the observational data? Where is the control study? Where is the scientific method?
What we have here is a so called scientist using personel feelings in an attempt to sway others into buying his point of veiw. He has no data-No study-No method.
All he has is his inability to believe And a poor attempt at stereotyping doctors as an analogy.
"btw, say what you like i will not respond to your religious wordplay.
You wont be disappointed when you don't go to heaven, think about that."
First, I don't believe in Heaven in the Christian sense because i'm not a Christian.
Second, Being an Astrophysicist doesn't make you privy to all of creation.
On matters concerning Astrophysics i would defer to Tyson, but making a claim as to Gods existance or lack thereof, is just a tinsy bit outside his expertise.
If our universe is constantly expanding, and there are other universes, and they're constantly expanding, would everything from the two crash and make a clusterfuck, or possibly lap over each other? Man, the only thing more interesting than the universe is the possibilities of the universe.
Either way the Universe is weird. If it is finite that means there is "nothing" outside it and nothingness is a mind fuck. Or perhaps if it is finite there are multiple universes like bubbles in a bubble bath. If it is infinite obviously infinity is impossible to grasp. lol
@endauthority You obviously have no idea what Quantum Mechanics is. It refuses empirical data on principle, yet it is science. This argument is useless. Empiricism is a form of philosophical reasoning that is used to devise theses. What makes science so wonderful is that it trumps philosophy by using it as a stepping stool to a greater understanding. A person could look at Goodman's paradox for the rest of their life and not learn anything. The same cannot be said for Newton's formulas.
da univerese aint finite cuz we got da inverse square law innit. if u drewd da inverse square curve on some paper, den it goes on foreva and it dun reach zero so dat meanz gravcity goez on foreva too an shit. so da univeser is inifinite innit.
If indeed our universe started with a size smaller than the atom & expanded since the Big Bang then it logically follows that our universe can never be infinite at any given time not unless our universe (all of space time matter energy) expanded into a pre-existing empty space of an infinite UNIVERSE that contains our universe born from the Big Bang. But the Big Bang Theory does not allow us to think of our Universe expanding into empty space but space itself has expanded since the Big Bang.
"But the Big Bang Theory does not allow us to think of our Universe expanding into empty space"
That's not totally true. The Big Bang Theory just states that their would be some sort of information wall at the horizons as Tyson puts it. Everything that banged out of the Bug Bang is not necessarily all there is according to Big Bang theory. It's just all that's useful and productive to talk about.
@DickJohnson3434, Who is Tyson? What basis does he has to say that? All Astronomy books says space itself came into being in the big bang and matter/energy is not expanding into pre-existing empty space ("Newtonian space"), otherwise the expansion is just an explosion of infinitely densed lump of energy/matter concentrated in a tiny region of space inside the "Newtonian Space" which is observed to be expading now at the speed of light which Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not allow.
@DickJohnson3434 , if there is an information wall at the horizon then its impossible to make observation beyond the horizon. Thus, Tyson has no scientific basis to speculate there might be something ("empty space or hyper space," whatever) beyond the horizon. He's just speculating. Tyson should stick to the scientific principle that if something isn't observable then it's not falsifiable. Thus, "beyond the horizon" is mere speculation that we can conveniently ignore. So, Let's ignore it.
Tyson is the speaker of this video. OF COURSE he is speculating, that is the whole point. We don't know if the universe (meaning all there is) is or is not infinite. But you came along and said the big bang theory has already settled this matter. It has not.
@DickJohnson3434, you don't get my point. If the universe is expanding and that it means space itself is expanding then it would be logically incoherent to think that it's possible for an infinite space to expand. Only finite things expand. So if Tyson says we don't know if an expanding space is infinite in dimension then he should also say the expansion of the universe is not a certain thing.
The start of the list of positive integers is actually negative infinity.
Integers are integers... whether they are negative or positive is a human construct to make it easier for our limited minds to actually do something useful with them.
@MrHowToDoIt The set of "positive" integers, aka the Natural Numbers, does not include negative integers. If that doesn't satisfy you, pick any number x and start counting. You will have a start, x, but no end.
To your second point, please search for Integer on Wikipedia. These terms are not without formal definitions.
But yes, natural numbers are 0+, but even then sometimes you don't even include the zero. German publications require you to state explicitly whether you are including zero or not. Doesn't mean the zero is not a valid, and real, value to work with, you just choose a set of number that you are work with.
A proof using negative values is as rigorous as one that doesn't.
@MrHowToDoIt The point is, we can define objects which have a beginning but no end. See induction.
I think what you are trying to say is that reality is continuous versus discrete. Analog versus digital. No matter what bounds you place, in reality you can go a step further, yes? Something like that? In that case, theres not much we can say beyond "I don't know" because we don't know yet.
@riahmatic hmmmm i like how you put that :) but if the universe started from a point and has been expanding since, it will not be infinite. Velocity X Time = Distance.
It has been expanding, at a velocity (all be it changing) for a certain amount of time. If we have 2 non infinite numbers and times them together we will get the distance the universe has covered and it might be a huge number, but not infinite.
@Sum41rthe1 There is a limit to velocity of matter (which is some velocity less than than C) and light is limited to C -- but we are much less certain about the velocity at which space itself can expand. It may be that space may start expanding at some velocity that is finite and then proceed to expand (after a finite interval of time) at an infinite velocity.
Again, we are not talking about matter moving infinitely fast or information (in the form of light) moving infinitely fast. Just space.
What an asshole, he says "the fact that the universe had a beginning" LOL, Pure bullshit, its not a fact, and there is no evidence in favor of his statement.
@OralAgreement69 LOL, its funny how what you just said only applies to you. You are in fact the one that is too stupid to understand what he said. You aren't even aware of the existence of the word "too", you present yourself as a retard would. Nice job getting owned kid, better luck next time. Retard, LOLOL
@ticklemypickles For you, I'll call it the 16th dimension of the M theory, or maybe an inifinite quantum multi-verse, I suppose it sounds better than "God" to you.
@endauthority Science is the knowledge gained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.
@ticklemypickles You clearly havent spent much time studying philosophy. You probably think that rationalists or nihilists make up the entire lot, and dont know what empiricism is. Science is a branch of empiricist philosophy. Empiricism is an epistemological way of thinking that believes we can only learn about reality by observing it.
Every scientist that ever existed is a philosopher.
@ticklemypickles No, they havent changed at all. Science is and always was a philosophy. They dont teach a different kind of empiricism in philosophy classes, its the same as it always was.
Religion isnt a philosophy, and the philosophy that used god was merely incomplete and not well thought out(like calculus was at first). Philosophy tries to justify its self, and ultimately prove its self true at some level. Religion is merely belief because of your emotions.
@ticklemypickles Yes, words evolve, unfortunately for you, the definition of empiricism didnt, and neither does history.
Whether or not you want science to be a philosophy or not is irrelevant, the very nature of philosophy simply doesnt allow science to be anything other than philosophy. You seem to think philosophy is just some convenient thing deists or hippies do, when in reality science, mathematics, and pretty much anything objective is in its domain
@ticklemypickles thats not true, any philosophy class teaches you what empiricism is and what the history of science is. science started with aristotle. the nature of science flat out doesnt allow it to be anything other than philosophy, you dogmatic fool.
@ticklemypickles Actually, I've proven my case. I consider you to be a bit religious, because even with the evidence on my side, you stick with your gut instincts. You are religious, maybe not in the supernatural way, but you certainly have a religious way of thinking about reality in that you are dogmatic.
@ticklemypickles Science never became more powerful, except in a social context, and if social contexts matter you have to justify it, which again, is philosophy.
Science works off of the hypothesis that reality exists. Without that science is pointless, and that axiom is an axiom, thus its philosophy (in addition to all of the other proof ive given, which is why I won this debate)
@endauthority that's like saying that a monkey can not be anything other then a fish, since that is where it came from.
Now Science comes from Philosophy but it more of a mechanism and it has been improved over the centuries. It's no longer a matter of Philosophy that controls science or improves it but results. Philosophy and science still have ties but to say Science is still just a Philosophy would be deeply ignorant of the evolution of science.
@DoomsdayR3sistance No it isnt like saying that. Science is still a branch of empiricism, and the fact that theres a scientific method only proves my point more
Given the nature of what philosophy is, and given the nature of what science is, its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy
epistemology is the question of what is knowable, empiricism is knowledge via observation. You mean to tell me the fact that theres an unbiased method changes it? give me a break!
@endauthority Considering you were talking about somebody else as being dogmatic and then saying, "its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy", is DEEPLY hypocritical of you. More so considering that those things called dictionaries which are used to define things rarely if ever define science as philosophy.
I am not gunna give you a break because you are being an idiot about this and as equally dogmatic as those whom you so willingly label as that.
@DoomsdayR3sistance h This can be questioned, but when I prove myself right (which I have) then the other party needs to concede. He wont question his bullshit, I am open to being wrong, however im not.
Its literally impossible for A to be B, just like its impossible for science to NOT be philosophy.
The fact that science has a method only means that the epistemological nature of science is empiricism while removing individual bias.
@DoomsdayR3sistance in addition to what i just said, dictinaries arent that useful in this situation as theyre meant for quick explanations
if you look up pragmatic or rational it doesnt say the word philosophy, doesnt change the fact that they are both part of their respective philosophies.
what you are doing is essentially scanning the shortest source for the word philosophy, and if it isnt there then you think youre right. you need to not be retarded
@endauthority what the heck!? Does it matter if Dictionaries (what clearly you don't use as you can't spell the word when it's in front of you) are quick definitions or not, you said, "its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy". Stop being stupid. Philosophy is about Rational debate and exploration, Science is about methodology I already said this in my first response to you. Science has gone past Philosophy, it's evolved away and become it's own thing. (cont)
You're dogmatic, your assertion that science is only philosophy and nothing else is DOGMATIC! Science is not bound to the same flaws and mistakes of philosophy, it has moved past it and become something almost automated. Science no longer needs philosophy to work, it just works because it does.
Heck if you look at Wikipedia it goes out of it's way on it's Philosophy page to SEPARATE the two very well because they are no longer the same, you dogmatic fool.
@DoomsdayR3sistance You desperately need to educate yourself, you are no better than a creationist.
wikipedia org/wiki/Empiricism
That is what science is, with a methodology that seeks to remove individual bias, which doesnt change anything. Science is JUSTIFIED BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS PHILOSOPHY YOU RETARD.
Dogmatic science fanboys hate the fact that science is philosophy because you guys think all philosophy is the same, and that its all subjective. lol you are a zealot. (2/2)
@DoomsdayR3sistance Yes it does matter what dictionaries do(which I do use, but only when appropriately, unlike you)
What youre doing is essentially looking up the definition of water, not seeing the word wet and thus concluding that water isnt wet.Read the history of science, the methodology is just their epistemology. If you cant see that, you probably dont know what epistemology or philosophy are. Which wouldnt surprise me. It didnt go beyond philosophy because it seeks the same things
@endauthority you are retarded... I can't even be bothered with you. You haven't even read the thing that yourself linked too, have you? How stupid. You made a generalized statement that science can't be defined without philosophy and yet it is commonly, it doesn't matter on the how, what matters is you made a stupid and absurd statement. That why it doesn't matter what a dictionary does you 2nd grade retard.
Ice and Steam are also water and yet can exist in states that are not wet (cont)
you fucktard and this is on the same level of mistake as you claiming science is only philosophy and nothing more. I have said what science is! IT'S A METHODOLOGY YOU IGNORANT HYPOCRITICAL DEGENERATE. Philosophy is NOT a METHODOLOGY, Science IS! See this, one is a methodology, the other isn't... get the difference! Science has evolved and your stupid dogmatic responses just show the level of retardation you are on, you accuse me of being no better then a creationist, again you're a hypocrite.
@DoomsdayR3sistance The methodology it self is rooted in philosophy. There is no question that involves wisdom, why or how that is outside the realm of philosophy. You arent educated, please take a philosophy class.
you say the fact that methodology removes the fact that its philosophy, WHY?
Especially considering:
wikipedia org/wiki/Empiricism#Usage
Fucking uneducated retard. You dont even KNOW what philosophy is
@DoomsdayR3sistance in addition to what I just posted, I cant name a single philosophy that does not have some kind of methodology associated with it. Logic its self is a method, and nearly every philosophy uses it. And no, you illiterate retard, I didnt just say that logic is the only method philosophies use.
You dont know what philosophy is. You really, really dont. Methods do not change anything
@endauthority I don't know what to say to you, you're being that stupid.... I really don't... there are many forms of Logic past that of the Philosophy kind but the Philosophy kind is not the kind of logic that uses method. Philosophy allows for Metaphysics what science does not because Metaphysics isn't actually evidence based and yet science is because the two things have diverged. Metaphysics isn't even really logical but it's philosophy nether the less.
as for uneducated, holy fuck, you're the one that's made the retarded statements here...
"I have no particular reason to be dogmatic about this classification since I don't really care either way."
You clearly fucking do, you want science to be labeled as philosophy. Science still has it's philosophy root but it's moved past it, it has evolved to become it's own independent method that does not require philosophy anymore.
so stop being stupid unless you want me to pick you apart more!
@DoomsdayR3sistance speaking of stupid, you just responded to someone else as if it were me. Good job retard.
Also, I left another comment about the metaphysical, make sure you read that.
Ive already proven that methods dont change anything, as theres the EMPIRICAL METHOD (which I linked to, but you didnt read, because youre a science religion fag)
@endauthority apologies, I am not so dogheaded as to hide when I am clearly wrong. You however couldn't spell dictionary what in itself begs many questions... like how you couldn't spell a word that was in a post you were responding.
"Ive already proven that methods dont change anything, as theres the EMPIRICAL METHOD"
No, you have asserted, not proved. There is a difference.
@DoomsdayR3sistance Okay, I think we're getting to the core misunderstanding you have.
Yes, there is a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but it does not justify the existence of god, it is merely a branch of philosophy that discusses it(because metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality). Many philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is nothing supernatural, and that the universe is material, which is another aspect that science follows.
I never said Metaphysics does prove god, I inferred it refers to that which does not actually follow on from evidence. Philosophy does not have a requirement of proof like science and does not always care about the method of how it got from A to B like science.
go Wikipedia Logic
Don't even claim there is only one type of logic, my expertize is computing and that is a field that deals with different types of logic from logic circuits to AI.
@DoomsdayR3sistance It works on logical evidence. Also, it depends on the philosophy you're talking about empiricist philosophers (scientists) would say theres no evidence to suggest theres any deities etc, but that does not remove them from the discussion, as theres more to metaphysics than that. It asks about the fundamental nature of reality and existence.
Theres only one kind of logic. You can section it off for convenience (which is what you do), however they all follow the same law
@endauthority Science doesn't concern itself with answers but what is testable and what is not, philosophers do, even if that answer is, "we can not know, at least for now".
Logic Circuits are a part of electrical engineering, it concerns itself only with logic of mathematical principles to go about changing electrical states. AI is about replicating Artificial Intelligence through examination and logical judgments on knowledge bases and concerns itself with information, whatever the form.
and then a good part of any real software engineer's/developer's/programmer's role is converting Business Logic into Computer logic because they are fundamentally different types of logic to begin and need to be processed in different ways. Even tho a computer can be used to enforce business logic, but computers can only deal with one type of knowledge. There are two main types one is based on what is knowable and teachable, the other is based of that which is instinctual and difficult to teach.
because of the differences between tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge, both of these can be used in logic but only one of those can be transferred to a computer system with any real ease and accuracy (explicit). So no, there are different forms of knowledge and different practices of logic to go with it.
@DoomsdayR3sistance You are really stretching it. Business logic is still logic, however its logic specifically meant for business, it still follows the laws of logic.
Something like "economics is true" is not different than any other logical statement, logic is about argumentation, not context. If you dont understand that, I doubt youre very good at engineering.
@endauthority Business Logic follows personal logic of the employees/owners of the business. It uses tacit knowledge, are you saying that real logic uses tacit knowledge when it is known to also be so faulty? It is after all the same kind of knowledge that people refer to when saying god exists, despite the knowledge being faulty/wrong their "feeling" that he exists is not easily transferable.
Then go to Logic Circuits that just don't deal with knowledge... at all, they just don't.
@endauthority Knowledge builds an argument, a logical argument from expertise uses knowledge. Reason and Logic are not the same thing, Logic is simply a type of reasoning that is more confined. It doesn't have laws as you said earlier...
and I think by logical reasoning we are done here, why? Because we just aren't going to agree so what's the point?
@endauthority blurdy idiot, I already linked you too that. Why are you so stupid.... I mean seriously, are you really reading what I am saying or are you just ignorantly blundering on making stupid arguments. I already said there is no logical reason to think we'll ever agree and I stand by that.
Digital Logic is entirely different to Philosophy Logic! note that the Logic page has a link, it's called "Logic (disambiguation)". Check it out, it also splits Mathematical Logic from Philosophical!
@DoomsdayR3sistance your dictionary simply proved my case that logic is argument structure. Even though the dictionary proved me right, you need to stop being retarded and realize that dictionaries arent actually that useful in a situation like this, you need to read an encyclopedia to get a decent understanding of a concept, thats why they were invented you half wit.
And yes digitial circuits do use arguments, any information passed is an argument you shit for brains. You suck @ your job.
@DoomsdayR3sistance All logic follows the same laws, A!=B. There has never been, and there simply cannot be a form of a logic that justifies that.
You dont even know what logic is, and ive linked you to that page several times.
Yes, you CAN separate logic into categories for different uses, it does NOT, I repeat does NOT (and CANNOT POSSIBLY) be different. Digital logic is logic represented in binary. No different than any other form of logic. Logic is justified the same way, EVERYTIME
@DoomsdayR3sistance " Science doesn't concern itself with answers but what is testable and what is not"
Thats because its part of the Empiricist philosophy. The scientific method (empirical method) is meant for philosophers to understand reality based on empiricist thinking.
Like I said, you are sectioning off aspects of logic, they fundamentally are the same, even if something like boolean logic does not use probability, the fundamental laws of logic still apply, or its not logic.
@endauthority your explanation here does not describe science as philosophy but as a tool of philosophy. Following that on then Science wouldn't be philosophy just like a screwdriver is not human, it came from human manufacture but is not the same thing as that which it came from.
Look up the Monty Hall problem, here you have two different forms of "logic", one being common sense which is more often then not wrong and the other is mathematical which is right. "laws of logic" you made that up.
@DoomsdayR3sistance It does describe science as a philosophy because in order for the scientific method to have any purpose you have to justify it. No philosopher(scientist) would study reality if they thought reality was an illusion. Every philosopher that ever existed answered questions about reality based on other aspects of their philosophy. Science is no different (which is why im 100% correct)
You are comparing reason and logic, thats why you're wrong again. Your issue is semantical
@endauthority it's not, logic is simply a type of reason; it is reasoning. Logic does not always equate to a correct answer despite that being the goal. The whole point of logic is to find correct reasoning and The Monty Hall problem is one such example, it is to lead people to examine the logic that they use as common sense is a faulty logic.
You have to justify the scientific method? Since when, does science care if it's justifiable? Reality is what is real, that's ALL scientists can (cont)
demonstratively can only examine that which is real. However Philosophy doesn't in my opinion demonstrate that reality isn't an illusion. "I think therefore I am" as one example only demonstrates you are something that has the ability to think and even that is questionable in my opinion; It doesn't lead on to saying you are as you see yourself. The Matrix example would be a person strapped in a machine for their whole life... the people inside do not see themselves as that.
@DoomsdayR3sistance In addition, the philosophical logic section merely talks about how it uses rhetoric to demonstrate logic. Just because you see words does not mean you understand everything it says, it illiterate, dogmatic drone.
Mathematical logic: 2+2=4
Philosophical logic: Two things of the same kind added by another two of the same kind is four because...
You are an idiot. Get some patience, and read a little bit.
@endauthority Your inability to formulate a coherent response in support of Philosophy demonstrates a total lack of comprehension of the real World and my balanced point of view.
Your head is so full of Philosophical abstractions that you have lost touch. SAD!
@ticklemypickles The reason they dont seem coherent to you is because this is like trying to teach a chimp calculus. You more than likely dont understand anything about science either, and without its philosophy, science will go unjustified.
@ticklemypickles "Yours is a minority opinion" - No it isnt, thats why ive linked sources that prove my claim several times
"most Scientists today wouldn't give Philosophy a second thought" That wouldnt really matter one way or the other, the field of science is empiricist philosophy. I am objectively correct in every way.
" They know their work is self-justifying." - Just like A=A right? Oh wait, thats an Axiom, and thats just another philosophical concept. You are ignorant as hell
@ticklemypickles No it isnt the minority view. In addition to the 800 other sources ive posted that prove I am right, and that you are anti-science, heres one more
then you run on the idea of tabula rasa, that is, the mind is a blank slate (or at least, it mostly is), which justifies experimenting, as opposed to what plato wanted
next, you have to assume the only way to learn anything is through EXPERIENCE (testing)
etc
science is just part of the empiricist philosophy, dont assume philosophy is all the same
Science has the scientific method to set out and prove their hypothesis.
Philosophy doesn't have that.
Science uses empirical RESEARCH/EVIDENCE
Philosophy doesn't set out to prove anything, though you do have arguments for certain positions, since with philosophical problems you can't prove it. This is why they are not the same term.
To learn things about the natural/physical world the only way to do it is through science, which it's about
If you can't prove it, then why do you bring it up if it's pointless?
Empiricism is the theory/view behind it, not the actual ACT of proving something. Just like the Theory of Gravity explains gravity, but in itself isn't gravity. That's why it's an "ism"
@AmericanNohbuddy I brought it up to make a point, that science its self rests on other philosophical concepts, such as axioms. With that being said, if reality is only a theory, then what does that make every single scientific discovery? Unproven, and purely theoretical.
The method is merely the extension of empiricism. In addition to wanting observation based evidence, science philosophers know that people have bias, and seek to weed it out. That really couldnt possibly change what it is.
Well since apparently mankind can only go on what we have, let's just deal with that. Saying "you can't prove reality" goes nowhere and "trying to prove reality" would honestly make no sense.
Empiricism is the theory behind it, but not the same thing.
Is the Theory of Gravity itself Gravity? No it's not.
@AmericanNohbuddy the method is empiricism because despite observations being the best way to find knowledge and wisdom, individuals have bias. The method its self IS philosophical, and any attempt to say it isnt ends up being laughable honestly. Theres a reason the method exist, and reason is within philosophy, and all knowledge and wisdom falls into the category of philosophy as well
saying humanity can only deal with what we have is a philosophical position.
@AmericanNohbuddy the process of finding the facts is based on reasons, thus its philosophical.
"How the hell can you prove a reality exists when you only have the things in the said reality to test it, which is in question?"
talk to a logical positivist or a rationalist about that
"You sound like a Randroid right now."
I couldnt possibly sound less like a randroid, do you even know what they believe in? They wouldnt go anywhere near the discussion of whether reality exists. Please read more
@AmericanNohbuddy the process only makes sense if you believe in the philosophy that science rests on.
I never said they were testing it. I also dont see how thats relevant, especially given the context of this discussion and the points of view both camps have.
Absolutely not, i am not in any way acting like a randroid. Theres a difference between being right, and being dogmatic. I have completely proven my case with numerous sources, and so far, I havent gotten anything like that in return.
@AmericanNohbuddy ive linked the definitions on this page about 30 separate times to prove my point.
But the definitions came from various encyclopedias, where you actually get real information, and not just one or two liners to feed oversimplification
anyone who denies that science is philosophy doesnt know anything about either. the very process you talk about rests on philosophy, and is merely the exploration of the said philosophy.
"It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."
So yeah, empiricism is apart of the scientific method. Which is why they use the term "empirical evidence".
Philosophy is the study of problems, but not the process of finding out the truth through testable evidence, which Science is. You can't grasp that.
@AmericanNohbuddy philosophy: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language
and the s. method is there to find knowledge and to solve problems. the method is based on philosophy, and cannot be separated from it, because without the REASONING behind the science, then there is no science. science is more than a method too, its also a body of knowledge. nice cherry picking, you fallacy machine
@AmericanNohbuddy If you think other philosophies dont have methods that merely explore their ideas, you are sadly mistaken, but i doubt you care, because youre ignorant, and proud of it. the first full fleshed western philosophy had a method (rationalism), and nobody has EVER tried separating it from the philosophy. the ONLY reason you do is because you think philosophy is like religion, it scares you that science is based on assumptions just like other ideas are. comment 2/2
@AmericanNohbuddy Lets pretend for a second that the sci. method is separate from philosophy (it isnt), and scientists merely conduct the process.
What reason would a person have to conduct it?
They obviously believe:
A) Reality exists, and is material
B) The mind is a blank slate (or at least partially)
C) That we can learn about reality
A-C are philosophical, and with these beliefs in hand, how can you possibly say they arent exploring these ideas with every experiment?Exploring ideas =phil
@AmericanNohbuddy "Philosophy is exploring ideas" Yup, I agree, thats why science, and the method its self is philosophy.
" but not through physical experimentation to prove them."
Thats a completely arbitrary line in the sand youve drawn. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY who is well versed in philosophy would agree with this statement. If the philosophy is based on the physical world like empiricism is, its argument structure needs physical proof. Period. You cornered yourself
@AmericanNohbuddy "I don't care if someone who is "well versed in philosophy" would agree." well its good to know that you are not open to discussion of any kind. Speaking of being like a randroid...
Who would know more about what philosophy is, you, or everyone else who actually engages it?
Getting physical proof is completely irrelevant and couldnt possibly matter at all. Not to mention, you arent even sure if what you deem as physical is merely a mental illusion. You dont know science :(
This has been flagged as spam show
How could the universe not be infinite? It must have an understanding of what is outside of itself if not. In that case it would at least mean that the "expansion" of space is infinite, if matter is not. But then where would finite matter have come from? It makes much more sense if it were infinite, especially because something more simplistic than time must have existed before the universe exploded.
I think we're using the wrong means to discuss this. What's more simplistic than movement?
superearthbender 1 month ago
Comment removed
superearthbender 1 month ago
Golden rule when studying existence: Always assume you don't know shit.
MrDarknessandDeath 1 month ago
There is no question as well as answer of a god. The Reality is Infinity even if there is a vision it is a temporary in the absence of vision also Infinity is there. Those formulas made by human are also temporary because Physics, Chemistry and Biology changes Universally. It is Infinite Conversion human life is a micro part of this Conversion this is Infinite Reaction no one is creator nor destroyer nor controller. Finally this is Infinite Universal Reaction
nblackmatter 2 months ago
Scientists are wrong about nothing faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe is destined to surpass light speed , Time to re write the books and laws.
zestydude87 2 months ago
@zestydude87 Well in a way yes, the universe itself may have expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light but it is not exactly a thing to be constrained by that limit. You see space-time is what is expanding. The matter and energy in it obeys the laws of physics and don't travel faster than the speed of light. Nothing to rewrite.
DamienZshadow 1 month ago
Isn't funny how your god made it so its impossible to find unless I take your word for it and read your special book! Leaving me wide open to be deceived by another man with a different book :( in your book wasn't god speaking to people daily?? Why so shy now?
jadagod 3 months ago 10
look at these poor confused intellectuals - by wiriting God out of the equation they dream up all sorts of hypotheses, ask questions that fry the mind and assume the most crazy thing in the end - that the universe always was and then try to sound profound by asking ' who made God?' - absolutely frightening the way they have brainwashed themselves into their inductive premises.
whiteliketar 3 months ago
@whiteliketar Writing a "god" into anything to do with reality brings up more questions than answers.How can you expect scientists to "write god into the equation" if theologists can't decide on one a consistent, universally accepted definition of "god". Trust me If ANY scientist could definitively prove a "god's" existence he would be met with accolades. Aside: When have modern scientists ever said that " that the universe always was ". They say the known universe began at the Big bang.
wyvernlord23 3 months ago
@wyvernlord23 you just don't write God into anything my confused atheist comrade - it is a revelation - faith goes where logic can go no further - it makes sense that the God who is the great I AM - would confuse the crap out of men to figure him out - you want HIM to appear so you can measure him with your ruler and measuring tape whilst HE chose to reveal himself in scripture - I ask again - whose fault is it that you and your confused friends have written him out of the equation>?
whiteliketar 3 months ago
@whiteliketar , this is what i hear "you just don´t write God into anything, God chose goat herders from the bronze age; faith goes where logic can go no further, like delusion - It is funny if you know psychology and you hear someone refering to god has the great I AM- God confuses you because you want any valid indication of his existance, but he chose to manifest in a primitive book, and some sandwich that was sold in las vegas, so that´s what you get..
Psity 2 months ago
@Psity - were you trying to say something stupid or did it come naturally?
whiteliketar 2 months ago
@whiteliketar I just copied from you men, I think it comes naturally.
Psity 2 months ago
@Psity -I am not so sure - your version seems quite unique in this world - the word esoteric comes to mind. lol
whiteliketar 2 months ago
@whiteliketar God must be very schizophrenic because he apparently chose to reveal himself in many scriptures in many religions under many names and sometimes at the same time. They can't all be right since they all damn one another. How are we supposed to even use that as evidence???
DamienZshadow 1 month ago
Makes me think about how Scholars talked about if the Earth had a end or edge.
they prob wondered what was what at the edge or end...little did they know they saw it every night when they looked up at the stars.
Nowak18827 3 months ago
how about sticking to questions that can be answered
Skandalos 4 months ago
@Skandalos Because that's less interesting.
maneatingtoilets 3 months ago
Comment removed
JackeShanTwo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skandalos We'd still be living in caves if we did that. :)
basmithtx 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrWrldpce 4 months ago
I wonder what Tyson thinks about nutrinos being faster than the speed of light.
Zlibservacratican 4 months ago
If it had a begining how can it be infinite..
saliverdis 4 months ago
@saliverdis just because all matter started at a single point, doesn't mean that space was confined to that point. I'm a layman though, I'm sure someone smarter will come along and correct or confirm.
phuljojo 4 months ago
@saliverdis then what's the end? can you imagine the end? the limit? whats beyond the limit? It gotta be infinite or what's after the limit? It gotta be something!
fredriol 3 months ago
The farthest we can see with our telescope are the objects in the very early universe whose light has not yet reach us due to its expansion. But there would be an opaque wall of light that bars us from looking beyond the big bang. Thus, if the farthest objects that we could ever see is the opaque wall just after the big bang then it mean the universe is FINITE in spatial dimension not unless we can prove that soace is expanding into empty space which is meaningless. Space expanding into space?
csdr0 4 months ago
The universe is NOT infinite.
The only thing that is infinite is the Creator.
Strike that, The Creator AND mans stupidity.
Everything that has a beggining must have an end-this has been shown to be true in every case and on every scale which we can observe.
God, However you choose to define the concept, Is the essence by which everything physical came into being and therefor not subject to the laws of the physical universe.
I am alpha and omega- God
Tyson is a flea.
commonsensrules 4 months ago
@commonsensrules
from what evidence do you assume a creator? the bible is not scientific evidence. Tyson is not a flea he is an astrophyscist and 1 of only 6000 in the world so he is 1 in a million. i think he knows what he is talking about.
robthesamplist 4 months ago
@robthesamplist
"from what evidence do you assume a creator? "
I AM
"i think he knows what he is talking about"
He doesn't.
At what point in Astrophysics 101 do they go over the "God doesn't exist" material?
At what point did Tyson take the Decades it takes to go through the existing data to make a rational decision on the subject? When did he spend the lifetime it takes to grasp just the Christian bible in it's totality, much less the Koran?
cont...
commonsensrules 4 months ago
@commonsensrules
trollish religious comment with a puppet channel subbed by shock of god bye. you made my day :)
robthesamplist 4 months ago
@robthesamplist
What Tyson is doing is so unscientific it's pathetic. Where is the observational data? Where is the control study? Where is the scientific method?
What we have here is a so called scientist using personel feelings in an attempt to sway others into buying his point of veiw. He has no data-No study-No method.
All he has is his inability to believe And a poor attempt at stereotyping doctors as an analogy.
Face it, Tyson is an idiot outside his specialty.
commonsensrules 4 months ago
@commonsensrules
btw, say what you like i will not respond to your religious wordplay.
You wont be disappointed when you don't go to heaven, think about that.
robthesamplist 4 months ago
@robthesamplist
"btw, say what you like i will not respond to your religious wordplay.
You wont be disappointed when you don't go to heaven, think about that."
First, I don't believe in Heaven in the Christian sense because i'm not a Christian.
Second, Being an Astrophysicist doesn't make you privy to all of creation.
On matters concerning Astrophysics i would defer to Tyson, but making a claim as to Gods existance or lack thereof, is just a tinsy bit outside his expertise.
commonsensrules 4 months ago
@commonsensrules
1 year ago i wouldn't of been able to tell if this guy is trolling or serious.
I underestimated youtube comments O_O"
Vonstuker4 4 months ago
fuck you dr. neil degrasse tyson. the universe does not have a begining.
bank4fun 4 months ago
@bank4fun justify this?
krandaman1 4 months ago
If our universe is constantly expanding, and there are other universes, and they're constantly expanding, would everything from the two crash and make a clusterfuck, or possibly lap over each other? Man, the only thing more interesting than the universe is the possibilities of the universe.
shcoome 5 months ago
Either way the Universe is weird. If it is finite that means there is "nothing" outside it and nothingness is a mind fuck. Or perhaps if it is finite there are multiple universes like bubbles in a bubble bath. If it is infinite obviously infinity is impossible to grasp. lol
S2Cents 5 months ago 11
@endauthority You obviously have no idea what Quantum Mechanics is. It refuses empirical data on principle, yet it is science. This argument is useless. Empiricism is a form of philosophical reasoning that is used to devise theses. What makes science so wonderful is that it trumps philosophy by using it as a stepping stool to a greater understanding. A person could look at Goodman's paradox for the rest of their life and not learn anything. The same cannot be said for Newton's formulas.
christofchaos 5 months ago
no ,end of desscusion!
randtheman688 6 months ago
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
KEEETARO 6 months ago
@KEEETARO Albert Einstein?
krisDM3000 6 months ago
@krisDM3000 oh yes
KEEETARO 6 months ago
ok ikno that the highest number prime number is 10million digits but is it INFINITE ?
K3nNYxxBB91 6 months ago
da univerese aint finite cuz we got da inverse square law innit. if u drewd da inverse square curve on some paper, den it goes on foreva and it dun reach zero so dat meanz gravcity goez on foreva too an shit. so da univeser is inifinite innit.
MasterofWU 7 months ago
If indeed our universe started with a size smaller than the atom & expanded since the Big Bang then it logically follows that our universe can never be infinite at any given time not unless our universe (all of space time matter energy) expanded into a pre-existing empty space of an infinite UNIVERSE that contains our universe born from the Big Bang. But the Big Bang Theory does not allow us to think of our Universe expanding into empty space but space itself has expanded since the Big Bang.
csdr0 7 months ago
@csdr0
"But the Big Bang Theory does not allow us to think of our Universe expanding into empty space"
That's not totally true. The Big Bang Theory just states that their would be some sort of information wall at the horizons as Tyson puts it. Everything that banged out of the Bug Bang is not necessarily all there is according to Big Bang theory. It's just all that's useful and productive to talk about.
DickJohnson3434 6 months ago
@DickJohnson3434, Who is Tyson? What basis does he has to say that? All Astronomy books says space itself came into being in the big bang and matter/energy is not expanding into pre-existing empty space ("Newtonian space"), otherwise the expansion is just an explosion of infinitely densed lump of energy/matter concentrated in a tiny region of space inside the "Newtonian Space" which is observed to be expading now at the speed of light which Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not allow.
csdr0 6 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 , if there is an information wall at the horizon then its impossible to make observation beyond the horizon. Thus, Tyson has no scientific basis to speculate there might be something ("empty space or hyper space," whatever) beyond the horizon. He's just speculating. Tyson should stick to the scientific principle that if something isn't observable then it's not falsifiable. Thus, "beyond the horizon" is mere speculation that we can conveniently ignore. So, Let's ignore it.
csdr0 6 months ago
@csdr0
Tyson is the speaker of this video. OF COURSE he is speculating, that is the whole point. We don't know if the universe (meaning all there is) is or is not infinite. But you came along and said the big bang theory has already settled this matter. It has not.
He was speculating, you were asserting.
DickJohnson3434 6 months ago
@DickJohnson3434, you don't get my point. If the universe is expanding and that it means space itself is expanding then it would be logically incoherent to think that it's possible for an infinite space to expand. Only finite things expand. So if Tyson says we don't know if an expanding space is infinite in dimension then he should also say the expansion of the universe is not a certain thing.
csdr0 6 months ago
Stupid question. Obvious answer. Pointless video.
ponedog 7 months ago
it is simple really, if the universe had a start it is finite,
if it didn't have a start it is infinite.
simple.
Sum41rthe1 8 months ago
@Sum41rthe1 the list of positive integers has a start. It's also infinite.
riahmatic 8 months ago 8
@riahmatic
The start of the list of positive integers is actually negative infinity.
Integers are integers... whether they are negative or positive is a human construct to make it easier for our limited minds to actually do something useful with them.
MrHowToDoIt 7 months ago
@MrHowToDoIt The set of "positive" integers, aka the Natural Numbers, does not include negative integers. If that doesn't satisfy you, pick any number x and start counting. You will have a start, x, but no end.
To your second point, please search for Integer on Wikipedia. These terms are not without formal definitions.
riahmatic 7 months ago
@riahmatic
I know that.
But that's just the formal definition. I'm talking about real life. The positive set of numbers is a subset of all numbers.
And those numbers go from negative infinity to positive infinity. That's the point I was trying to make.
Though I agree that the statement "The start of the list of positive integers is actually negative infinity." makes that pretty ambiguous.
MrHowToDoIt 7 months ago
@MrHowToDoIt
But yes, natural numbers are 0+, but even then sometimes you don't even include the zero. German publications require you to state explicitly whether you are including zero or not. Doesn't mean the zero is not a valid, and real, value to work with, you just choose a set of number that you are work with.
A proof using negative values is as rigorous as one that doesn't.
MrHowToDoIt 7 months ago
@MrHowToDoIt The point is, we can define objects which have a beginning but no end. See induction.
I think what you are trying to say is that reality is continuous versus discrete. Analog versus digital. No matter what bounds you place, in reality you can go a step further, yes? Something like that? In that case, theres not much we can say beyond "I don't know" because we don't know yet.
riahmatic 7 months ago
@riahmatic hmmmm i like how you put that :) but if the universe started from a point and has been expanding since, it will not be infinite. Velocity X Time = Distance.
It has been expanding, at a velocity (all be it changing) for a certain amount of time. If we have 2 non infinite numbers and times them together we will get the distance the universe has covered and it might be a huge number, but not infinite.
Sum41rthe1 6 months ago
@Sum41rthe1 There is a limit to velocity of matter (which is some velocity less than than C) and light is limited to C -- but we are much less certain about the velocity at which space itself can expand. It may be that space may start expanding at some velocity that is finite and then proceed to expand (after a finite interval of time) at an infinite velocity.
Again, we are not talking about matter moving infinitely fast or information (in the form of light) moving infinitely fast. Just space.
prodprod 6 months ago
where can i find all the lecture?
longulbogdan 8 months ago
i live down the street from uta
OralAgreement69 8 months ago
What an asshole, he says "the fact that the universe had a beginning" LOL, Pure bullshit, its not a fact, and there is no evidence in favor of his statement.
MrJonnyKilljoy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJonnyKilljoy yes there is evidence. you were just to stupid to understand what he said
OralAgreement69 8 months ago
@OralAgreement69 LOL, its funny how what you just said only applies to you. You are in fact the one that is too stupid to understand what he said. You aren't even aware of the existence of the word "too", you present yourself as a retard would. Nice job getting owned kid, better luck next time. Retard, LOLOL
MrJonnyKilljoy 8 months ago
@MrJonnyKilljoy yikes, your only argument is that i misspelled "too". good luck with your future arguments.
OralAgreement69 7 months ago
@OralAgreement69 and yes you CAN quote me on that. moron
OralAgreement69 7 months ago
If the universe had a beginning, how could it possibly be infinite?
somefooltookmyname 8 months ago
@somefooltookmyname Your asking the wrong people in the wrong place.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@somefooltookmyname My point exactly, If it expanded from virtually nothing and has continued to do so then it is finite. Just really damn big!
SolidSnake032486 8 months ago
Yeah, lets ignore the ultimate questions where the answer might be "God".
musicmind9 9 months ago
@musicmind9 which God did you have in mind?
ticklemypickles 8 months ago
@ticklemypickles For you, I'll call it the 16th dimension of the M theory, or maybe an inifinite quantum multi-verse, I suppose it sounds better than "God" to you.
musicmind9 8 months ago
@musicmind9 Anything sounds better than God to me!
To say the answer 'might' be God is just another way of saying you don't know.
The cause of thunder was once thought to be God.
But our secular understanding continues to improve and God continues to retreat.
HE exists now only in the netherworld of philosophical argument - enough said!
ticklemypickles 8 months ago 9
@ticklemypickles All evidence suggests that the deities all religions propose to be real; are in fact real, but existing only within the imagination.
MrJonnyKilljoy 8 months ago
@MrJonnyKilljoy So all deities are real but exist only in the imagination?
Now that is REAL philosophy! LOL
ticklemypickles 8 months ago
@ticklemypickles science is philosophy
endauthority 6 months ago
@endauthority Science is the knowledge gained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.
Philosophy is something else again!
ticklemypickles 6 months ago
@ticklemypickles You clearly havent spent much time studying philosophy. You probably think that rationalists or nihilists make up the entire lot, and dont know what empiricism is. Science is a branch of empiricist philosophy. Empiricism is an epistemological way of thinking that believes we can only learn about reality by observing it.
Every scientist that ever existed is a philosopher.
endauthority 6 months ago
@endauthority Then the definitions of Science and Philosophy have diverged somewhat recently.
Either that or the name has been hijacked by the latest crop of theist Philosophers in an attempt to find a last refuge for their preferred Deity!
ticklemypickles 6 months ago
@ticklemypickles No, they havent changed at all. Science is and always was a philosophy. They dont teach a different kind of empiricism in philosophy classes, its the same as it always was.
Religion isnt a philosophy, and the philosophy that used god was merely incomplete and not well thought out(like calculus was at first). Philosophy tries to justify its self, and ultimately prove its self true at some level. Religion is merely belief because of your emotions.
endauthority 6 months ago
@endauthority Language evolves and definitions that were accepted in the past have diverged and are now out of date.
Gay used to mean 'happy'!
Check your dictionary.
ticklemypickles 6 months ago
@ticklemypickles Yes, words evolve, unfortunately for you, the definition of empiricism didnt, and neither does history.
Whether or not you want science to be a philosophy or not is irrelevant, the very nature of philosophy simply doesnt allow science to be anything other than philosophy. You seem to think philosophy is just some convenient thing deists or hippies do, when in reality science, mathematics, and pretty much anything objective is in its domain
Science is also based on axioms
endauthority 6 months ago
@endauthority Did you check your dictionary yet?
ticklemypickles 6 months ago
@ticklemypickles just because words can change doesnt mean they did.
youre essentially doing what creationists do by arguing that god exists because they dont know if he does, or "he maybe does"
Empiricism is a form of epistemology which is a branch of philosophy, science is empiricism. look it up, educate yourself.
endauthority 6 months ago
@endauthority In todays world, Science is no longer percieved as "Philosophy"!
It is these shared perceptions that define comprehension and drive this change that you refuse to acknowledge.
Have you checked your dictionary yet?
ticklemypickles 6 months ago
@ticklemypickles thats not true, any philosophy class teaches you what empiricism is and what the history of science is. science started with aristotle. the nature of science flat out doesnt allow it to be anything other than philosophy, you dogmatic fool.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority I'm guessing that you consider yourself a bit of a Philosopher since you seem to like waffling but never have anything useful to say?
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles Actually, I've proven my case. I consider you to be a bit religious, because even with the evidence on my side, you stick with your gut instincts. You are religious, maybe not in the supernatural way, but you certainly have a religious way of thinking about reality in that you are dogmatic.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Initially, Science and Philosophy were almost synonymous.
As Science became ever more powerful, people began making the 'fact-value distinction'.
It is due to this distinction that we now consider them separate.
I have no particular reason to be dogmatic about this classification since I don't really care either way.
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles Science never became more powerful, except in a social context, and if social contexts matter you have to justify it, which again, is philosophy.
Science works off of the hypothesis that reality exists. Without that science is pointless, and that axiom is an axiom, thus its philosophy (in addition to all of the other proof ive given, which is why I won this debate)
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority that's like saying that a monkey can not be anything other then a fish, since that is where it came from.
Now Science comes from Philosophy but it more of a mechanism and it has been improved over the centuries. It's no longer a matter of Philosophy that controls science or improves it but results. Philosophy and science still have ties but to say Science is still just a Philosophy would be deeply ignorant of the evolution of science.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance No it isnt like saying that. Science is still a branch of empiricism, and the fact that theres a scientific method only proves my point more
Given the nature of what philosophy is, and given the nature of what science is, its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy
epistemology is the question of what is knowable, empiricism is knowledge via observation. You mean to tell me the fact that theres an unbiased method changes it? give me a break!
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Considering you were talking about somebody else as being dogmatic and then saying, "its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy", is DEEPLY hypocritical of you. More so considering that those things called dictionaries which are used to define things rarely if ever define science as philosophy.
I am not gunna give you a break because you are being an idiot about this and as equally dogmatic as those whom you so willingly label as that.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance h This can be questioned, but when I prove myself right (which I have) then the other party needs to concede. He wont question his bullshit, I am open to being wrong, however im not.
Its literally impossible for A to be B, just like its impossible for science to NOT be philosophy.
The fact that science has a method only means that the epistemological nature of science is empiricism while removing individual bias.
So if im wrong TELL ME HOW THAT ISNT PHILOSOPHY
endauthority 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance in addition to what i just said, dictinaries arent that useful in this situation as theyre meant for quick explanations
if you look up pragmatic or rational it doesnt say the word philosophy, doesnt change the fact that they are both part of their respective philosophies.
what you are doing is essentially scanning the shortest source for the word philosophy, and if it isnt there then you think youre right. you need to not be retarded
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority what the heck!? Does it matter if Dictionaries (what clearly you don't use as you can't spell the word when it's in front of you) are quick definitions or not, you said, "its LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to define science as anything other than philosophy". Stop being stupid. Philosophy is about Rational debate and exploration, Science is about methodology I already said this in my first response to you. Science has gone past Philosophy, it's evolved away and become it's own thing. (cont)
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
You're dogmatic, your assertion that science is only philosophy and nothing else is DOGMATIC! Science is not bound to the same flaws and mistakes of philosophy, it has moved past it and become something almost automated. Science no longer needs philosophy to work, it just works because it does.
Heck if you look at Wikipedia it goes out of it's way on it's Philosophy page to SEPARATE the two very well because they are no longer the same, you dogmatic fool.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance You desperately need to educate yourself, you are no better than a creationist.
wikipedia org/wiki/Empiricism
That is what science is, with a methodology that seeks to remove individual bias, which doesnt change anything. Science is JUSTIFIED BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS PHILOSOPHY YOU RETARD.
Dogmatic science fanboys hate the fact that science is philosophy because you guys think all philosophy is the same, and that its all subjective. lol you are a zealot. (2/2)
endauthority 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance Yes it does matter what dictionaries do(which I do use, but only when appropriately, unlike you)
What youre doing is essentially looking up the definition of water, not seeing the word wet and thus concluding that water isnt wet.Read the history of science, the methodology is just their epistemology. If you cant see that, you probably dont know what epistemology or philosophy are. Which wouldnt surprise me. It didnt go beyond philosophy because it seeks the same things
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority you are retarded... I can't even be bothered with you. You haven't even read the thing that yourself linked too, have you? How stupid. You made a generalized statement that science can't be defined without philosophy and yet it is commonly, it doesn't matter on the how, what matters is you made a stupid and absurd statement. That why it doesn't matter what a dictionary does you 2nd grade retard.
Ice and Steam are also water and yet can exist in states that are not wet (cont)
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
you fucktard and this is on the same level of mistake as you claiming science is only philosophy and nothing more. I have said what science is! IT'S A METHODOLOGY YOU IGNORANT HYPOCRITICAL DEGENERATE. Philosophy is NOT a METHODOLOGY, Science IS! See this, one is a methodology, the other isn't... get the difference! Science has evolved and your stupid dogmatic responses just show the level of retardation you are on, you accuse me of being no better then a creationist, again you're a hypocrite.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance The methodology it self is rooted in philosophy. There is no question that involves wisdom, why or how that is outside the realm of philosophy. You arent educated, please take a philosophy class.
you say the fact that methodology removes the fact that its philosophy, WHY?
Especially considering:
wikipedia org/wiki/Empiricism#Usage
Fucking uneducated retard. You dont even KNOW what philosophy is
endauthority 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance in addition to what I just posted, I cant name a single philosophy that does not have some kind of methodology associated with it. Logic its self is a method, and nearly every philosophy uses it. And no, you illiterate retard, I didnt just say that logic is the only method philosophies use.
You dont know what philosophy is. You really, really dont. Methods do not change anything
(2/2)
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority I don't know what to say to you, you're being that stupid.... I really don't... there are many forms of Logic past that of the Philosophy kind but the Philosophy kind is not the kind of logic that uses method. Philosophy allows for Metaphysics what science does not because Metaphysics isn't actually evidence based and yet science is because the two things have diverged. Metaphysics isn't even really logical but it's philosophy nether the less.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
as for uneducated, holy fuck, you're the one that's made the retarded statements here...
"I have no particular reason to be dogmatic about this classification since I don't really care either way."
You clearly fucking do, you want science to be labeled as philosophy. Science still has it's philosophy root but it's moved past it, it has evolved to become it's own independent method that does not require philosophy anymore.
so stop being stupid unless you want me to pick you apart more!
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance speaking of stupid, you just responded to someone else as if it were me. Good job retard.
Also, I left another comment about the metaphysical, make sure you read that.
Ive already proven that methods dont change anything, as theres the EMPIRICAL METHOD (which I linked to, but you didnt read, because youre a science religion fag)
endauthority 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@endauthority apologies, I am not so dogheaded as to hide when I am clearly wrong. You however couldn't spell dictionary what in itself begs many questions... like how you couldn't spell a word that was in a post you were responding.
"Ive already proven that methods dont change anything, as theres the EMPIRICAL METHOD"
No, you have asserted, not proved. There is a difference.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance Okay, I think we're getting to the core misunderstanding you have.
Yes, there is a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but it does not justify the existence of god, it is merely a branch of philosophy that discusses it(because metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality). Many philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is nothing supernatural, and that the universe is material, which is another aspect that science follows.
Theres only one logic.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
I never said Metaphysics does prove god, I inferred it refers to that which does not actually follow on from evidence. Philosophy does not have a requirement of proof like science and does not always care about the method of how it got from A to B like science.
go Wikipedia Logic
Don't even claim there is only one type of logic, my expertize is computing and that is a field that deals with different types of logic from logic circuits to AI.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance It works on logical evidence. Also, it depends on the philosophy you're talking about empiricist philosophers (scientists) would say theres no evidence to suggest theres any deities etc, but that does not remove them from the discussion, as theres more to metaphysics than that. It asks about the fundamental nature of reality and existence.
Theres only one kind of logic. You can section it off for convenience (which is what you do), however they all follow the same law
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Science doesn't concern itself with answers but what is testable and what is not, philosophers do, even if that answer is, "we can not know, at least for now".
Logic Circuits are a part of electrical engineering, it concerns itself only with logic of mathematical principles to go about changing electrical states. AI is about replicating Artificial Intelligence through examination and logical judgments on knowledge bases and concerns itself with information, whatever the form.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
and then a good part of any real software engineer's/developer's/programmer's role is converting Business Logic into Computer logic because they are fundamentally different types of logic to begin and need to be processed in different ways. Even tho a computer can be used to enforce business logic, but computers can only deal with one type of knowledge. There are two main types one is based on what is knowable and teachable, the other is based of that which is instinctual and difficult to teach.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
because of the differences between tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge, both of these can be used in logic but only one of those can be transferred to a computer system with any real ease and accuracy (explicit). So no, there are different forms of knowledge and different practices of logic to go with it.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance You are really stretching it. Business logic is still logic, however its logic specifically meant for business, it still follows the laws of logic.
Something like "economics is true" is not different than any other logical statement, logic is about argumentation, not context. If you dont understand that, I doubt youre very good at engineering.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Business Logic follows personal logic of the employees/owners of the business. It uses tacit knowledge, are you saying that real logic uses tacit knowledge when it is known to also be so faulty? It is after all the same kind of knowledge that people refer to when saying god exists, despite the knowledge being faulty/wrong their "feeling" that he exists is not easily transferable.
Then go to Logic Circuits that just don't deal with knowledge... at all, they just don't.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance dude you are talking about logic, reason and habit as if theyre the same thing.
logic isnt knowledge, logic is a way of structuring an argument.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Knowledge builds an argument, a logical argument from expertise uses knowledge. Reason and Logic are not the same thing, Logic is simply a type of reasoning that is more confined. It doesn't have laws as you said earlier...
and I think by logical reasoning we are done here, why? Because we just aren't going to agree so what's the point?
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
and P.S. Logic Circuits don't deal with arguments but are logic.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance nah, logic is the structure of an argument, i didnt say reason and logic are the same, because they arent.
Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies.
wikipedia org/wiki/Logic
read that, and youll have a better understanding of some of the things ive said
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority blurdy idiot, I already linked you too that. Why are you so stupid.... I mean seriously, are you really reading what I am saying or are you just ignorantly blundering on making stupid arguments. I already said there is no logical reason to think we'll ever agree and I stand by that.
Digital Logic is entirely different to Philosophy Logic! note that the Logic page has a link, it's called "Logic (disambiguation)". Check it out, it also splits Mathematical Logic from Philosophical!
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
on top of this, a dictionary gives several varying definitions of LOGIC!
"a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic."
"the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."
"reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move."
After all this I can't conclude you are worth talking to anymore. I have made my points and you ignorantly ignored most of them... good bye.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance your dictionary simply proved my case that logic is argument structure. Even though the dictionary proved me right, you need to stop being retarded and realize that dictionaries arent actually that useful in a situation like this, you need to read an encyclopedia to get a decent understanding of a concept, thats why they were invented you half wit.
And yes digitial circuits do use arguments, any information passed is an argument you shit for brains. You suck @ your job.
endauthority 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance All logic follows the same laws, A!=B. There has never been, and there simply cannot be a form of a logic that justifies that.
You dont even know what logic is, and ive linked you to that page several times.
Yes, you CAN separate logic into categories for different uses, it does NOT, I repeat does NOT (and CANNOT POSSIBLY) be different. Digital logic is logic represented in binary. No different than any other form of logic. Logic is justified the same way, EVERYTIME
endauthority 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance " Science doesn't concern itself with answers but what is testable and what is not"
Thats because its part of the Empiricist philosophy. The scientific method (empirical method) is meant for philosophers to understand reality based on empiricist thinking.
Like I said, you are sectioning off aspects of logic, they fundamentally are the same, even if something like boolean logic does not use probability, the fundamental laws of logic still apply, or its not logic.
(cont)
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority your explanation here does not describe science as philosophy but as a tool of philosophy. Following that on then Science wouldn't be philosophy just like a screwdriver is not human, it came from human manufacture but is not the same thing as that which it came from.
Look up the Monty Hall problem, here you have two different forms of "logic", one being common sense which is more often then not wrong and the other is mathematical which is right. "laws of logic" you made that up.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance It does describe science as a philosophy because in order for the scientific method to have any purpose you have to justify it. No philosopher(scientist) would study reality if they thought reality was an illusion. Every philosopher that ever existed answered questions about reality based on other aspects of their philosophy. Science is no different (which is why im 100% correct)
You are comparing reason and logic, thats why you're wrong again. Your issue is semantical
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority it's not, logic is simply a type of reason; it is reasoning. Logic does not always equate to a correct answer despite that being the goal. The whole point of logic is to find correct reasoning and The Monty Hall problem is one such example, it is to lead people to examine the logic that they use as common sense is a faulty logic.
You have to justify the scientific method? Since when, does science care if it's justifiable? Reality is what is real, that's ALL scientists can (cont)
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
demonstratively can only examine that which is real. However Philosophy doesn't in my opinion demonstrate that reality isn't an illusion. "I think therefore I am" as one example only demonstrates you are something that has the ability to think and even that is questionable in my opinion; It doesn't lead on to saying you are as you see yourself. The Matrix example would be a person strapped in a machine for their whole life... the people inside do not see themselves as that.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
scientists can only demonstratively examine that which is real*
Messed that up over the split.
DoomsdayR3sistance 5 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance In addition, the philosophical logic section merely talks about how it uses rhetoric to demonstrate logic. Just because you see words does not mean you understand everything it says, it illiterate, dogmatic drone.
Mathematical logic: 2+2=4
Philosophical logic: Two things of the same kind added by another two of the same kind is four because...
You are an idiot. Get some patience, and read a little bit.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority said: "Science works off of the hypothesis that reality exists. Without that science is pointless"
Yet more pretentious waffle.
It must have been a Philosopher who designed the King's New Clothes!
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles spoken like a true ignoramus
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Wrong again!
Spoken by someone who has seen through your futile rhetoric.
You see I knew all along that the King was naked! LOL
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles your pathetic attempt at trolling only points out your ignorance even more
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Your inability to formulate a coherent response in support of Philosophy demonstrates a total lack of comprehension of the real World and my balanced point of view.
Your head is so full of Philosophical abstractions that you have lost touch. SAD!
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles The reason they dont seem coherent to you is because this is like trying to teach a chimp calculus. You more than likely dont understand anything about science either, and without its philosophy, science will go unjustified.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Yours is a minority opinion, most Scientists today wouldn't give Philosophy a second thought. They know their work is self-justifying.
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles "Yours is a minority opinion" - No it isnt, thats why ive linked sources that prove my claim several times
"most Scientists today wouldn't give Philosophy a second thought" That wouldnt really matter one way or the other, the field of science is empiricist philosophy. I am objectively correct in every way.
" They know their work is self-justifying." - Just like A=A right? Oh wait, thats an Axiom, and thats just another philosophical concept. You are ignorant as hell
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority Yours IS a minority view although you (unsurprisingly) claim otherwise.
All you're basically saying is "I'm correct according to MY preferred interpretations and anyone who disagrees is an idiot"
You need to tame that EGO boy
It's not even as if this question is of any importance to anyone but a Philosopher!
ticklemypickles 5 months ago
@ticklemypickles No it isnt the minority view. In addition to the 800 other sources ive posted that prove I am right, and that you are anti-science, heres one more
sciencedaily com/articles/e/empiricism htm
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
Science = involves actual fact finding through testing and research.
Philosophy = thinking
Usually you have philosophical problems with what science deals with, like the classic "Should we play god?"
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy how iw science not a way of thinking?
first, you run on the axiom that reality exists
then you run on the idea of tabula rasa, that is, the mind is a blank slate (or at least, it mostly is), which justifies experimenting, as opposed to what plato wanted
next, you have to assume the only way to learn anything is through EXPERIENCE (testing)
etc
science is just part of the empiricist philosophy, dont assume philosophy is all the same
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
How do you prove reality exists?
Science has the scientific method to set out and prove their hypothesis.
Philosophy doesn't have that.
Science uses empirical RESEARCH/EVIDENCE
Philosophy doesn't set out to prove anything, though you do have arguments for certain positions, since with philosophical problems you can't prove it. This is why they are not the same term.
To learn things about the natural/physical world the only way to do it is through science, which it's about
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy "How do you prove reality exists?" you cant, its an axiom
"Science has the scientific method to set out and prove their hypothesis."
thats because science is an evidence based philosophy known as empiricism. look it up, i am right
"Philosophy doesn't set out to prove anything,"
Some do, some dont. Depends on which philosophy it is. Some philosophy puts evidence and proof at its cornerstone (like empiricism, which is science)
wikipedia org/wiki/Empiricism
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
If you can't prove it, then why do you bring it up if it's pointless?
Empiricism is the theory/view behind it, not the actual ACT of proving something. Just like the Theory of Gravity explains gravity, but in itself isn't gravity. That's why it's an "ism"
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy I brought it up to make a point, that science its self rests on other philosophical concepts, such as axioms. With that being said, if reality is only a theory, then what does that make every single scientific discovery? Unproven, and purely theoretical.
The method is merely the extension of empiricism. In addition to wanting observation based evidence, science philosophers know that people have bias, and seek to weed it out. That really couldnt possibly change what it is.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
Well since apparently mankind can only go on what we have, let's just deal with that. Saying "you can't prove reality" goes nowhere and "trying to prove reality" would honestly make no sense.
Empiricism is the theory behind it, but not the same thing.
Is the Theory of Gravity itself Gravity? No it's not.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy the method is empiricism because despite observations being the best way to find knowledge and wisdom, individuals have bias. The method its self IS philosophical, and any attempt to say it isnt ends up being laughable honestly. Theres a reason the method exist, and reason is within philosophy, and all knowledge and wisdom falls into the category of philosophy as well
saying humanity can only deal with what we have is a philosophical position.
gravity argument = irrelevant
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
But the PROCESS of finding out these facts is not, that's what science is.
"saying humanity can only deal with what we have is a philosophical position"
How the hell can you prove a reality exists when you only have the things in the said reality to test it, which is in question?
You sound like a Randroid right now.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy the process of finding the facts is based on reasons, thus its philosophical.
"How the hell can you prove a reality exists when you only have the things in the said reality to test it, which is in question?"
talk to a logical positivist or a rationalist about that
"You sound like a Randroid right now."
I couldnt possibly sound less like a randroid, do you even know what they believe in? They wouldnt go anywhere near the discussion of whether reality exists. Please read more
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
The process of finding the facts is science, and isn't based on "reason". It's based on observable, testable facts.
"logical positivist" or "rationalist" wouldn't be testing for it. And you yourself said you couldn't "prove reality exists" since it's an axiom.
I'm not saying you believe what a randroid does, but you are certainly acting like one.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy the process only makes sense if you believe in the philosophy that science rests on.
I never said they were testing it. I also dont see how thats relevant, especially given the context of this discussion and the points of view both camps have.
Absolutely not, i am not in any way acting like a randroid. Theres a difference between being right, and being dogmatic. I have completely proven my case with numerous sources, and so far, I havent gotten anything like that in return.
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
Just look up the definitions and it's right there, they aren't the same thing.
Science isn't a philosophy, it's a process.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy ive linked the definitions on this page about 30 separate times to prove my point.
But the definitions came from various encyclopedias, where you actually get real information, and not just one or two liners to feed oversimplification
anyone who denies that science is philosophy doesnt know anything about either. the very process you talk about rests on philosophy, and is merely the exploration of the said philosophy.
sciencedaily com/articles/e/empiricism htm
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
"It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."
So yeah, empiricism is apart of the scientific method. Which is why they use the term "empirical evidence".
Philosophy is the study of problems, but not the process of finding out the truth through testable evidence, which Science is. You can't grasp that.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy philosophy: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language
and the s. method is there to find knowledge and to solve problems. the method is based on philosophy, and cannot be separated from it, because without the REASONING behind the science, then there is no science. science is more than a method too, its also a body of knowledge. nice cherry picking, you fallacy machine
cont
endauthority 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy If you think other philosophies dont have methods that merely explore their ideas, you are sadly mistaken, but i doubt you care, because youre ignorant, and proud of it. the first full fleshed western philosophy had a method (rationalism), and nobody has EVER tried separating it from the philosophy. the ONLY reason you do is because you think philosophy is like religion, it scares you that science is based on assumptions just like other ideas are. comment 2/2
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
I never denied philosophy is apart of science due to the idea of empirical evidence. But it's not the same thing right down the middle.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy Lets pretend for a second that the sci. method is separate from philosophy (it isnt), and scientists merely conduct the process.
What reason would a person have to conduct it?
They obviously believe:
A) Reality exists, and is material
B) The mind is a blank slate (or at least partially)
C) That we can learn about reality
A-C are philosophical, and with these beliefs in hand, how can you possibly say they arent exploring these ideas with every experiment?Exploring ideas =phil
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
The philosophy behind empiricism is that knowledge is gained through experience. Science is the process to find out the hypothesis of a question.
Philosophy is exploring ideas, but not through physical experimentation to prove them. That's why science is a different word all together.
After all, scientists used to be called "Natural Philosophers".
There are also many philosophical problems/ideas you can't prove.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy "Philosophy is exploring ideas" Yup, I agree, thats why science, and the method its self is philosophy.
" but not through physical experimentation to prove them."
Thats a completely arbitrary line in the sand youve drawn. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY who is well versed in philosophy would agree with this statement. If the philosophy is based on the physical world like empiricism is, its argument structure needs physical proof. Period. You cornered yourself
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
I don't care if someone who is "well versed in philosophy" would agree.
And getting that physical proof is through the scientific method, not thinking about it like philosophy.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago
@AmericanNohbuddy "I don't care if someone who is "well versed in philosophy" would agree." well its good to know that you are not open to discussion of any kind. Speaking of being like a randroid...
Who would know more about what philosophy is, you, or everyone else who actually engages it?
Getting physical proof is completely irrelevant and couldnt possibly matter at all. Not to mention, you arent even sure if what you deem as physical is merely a mental illusion. You dont know science :(
endauthority 5 months ago
@endauthority
Philosophy doesn't use physical evidence to prove moral problems. Empiricism states that the only way to get knowledge is through experience.
"Getting physical proof is completely irrelevant and couldnt possibly matter at all"
Physical, testable evidence doesn't matter in science? And you say I don't know science?
You even said
"if the philosophy is based on the physical world like empiricism is, its argument structure needs physical proof"
Make up your mind.
AmericanNohbuddy 5 months ago