the steps can either be broken down into interactions explained by chemistry or there are people trying to do that. — Frederick KOH
What is at issue in this thread is whether naturalistic grounds for order are plural or whether there might be just one unique fundamental ground for all the areas of orderliness that empirical investigation discloses in nature. — Pierre-Normand
He thinks that we have souls, but he is certain that those souls can be explained by science. If evolution built them, they can be reverse-engineered.
...if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. — Stephen Hawking
They are not nuclear bonds. — Frederick KOH
This may be because we like to disclose order in nature, and disclosing pockets of order often affords opportunities for prediction and control within the empirical/technological domains thus disclosed. This satisfies both out thirst for theoretical knowledge and our needs for security (e.g. reliably finding food in the future). — Pierre-Normand
What is at issue in this thread is whether naturalistic grounds for order are plural or whether there might be just one unique fundamental ground for all the areas of orderliness that empirical investigation discloses in nature. Investigation into emergent phenomena -- both within and from physical domains -- seems to reveal pluralism to more sensibly portray nature and our cognitive access to it. This finding also harmonises with what is to be found in social sciences where the phenomena are at least partially constituted by our plural human practices. — Pierre-Normand
But these things are achieved by even cultures that don't privilege naturalistic explanations. — Frederick KOH
That's certainly true. Naturalistic explanation just is one mode of explanation among many others. It does disclose specific empirical domains that aren't cognitively (or technologically) accessible through other means. But some cultures go by without much of it. They still are capable of making objective judgments and to provide varieties of rational explanations of human behaviors, animal behaviors, and natural phenomena -- some of which often elude us for want of familiarity with, and understanding of, untamed environments. — Pierre-Normand
Why can't someone say the same thing for grounds in general, natural or not? — Frederick KOH
Of course you can say it, truly. Grounds for functional behaviors of human artifacts, or grounds of human cognitive/social phenomena aren't any less plural than are grounds for natural phenomena. — Pierre-Normand
So back to the chicken soup and the King's Touch. Why? — Frederick KOH
You can leave the King's touch out of it. Superstition is rampant in both primitive and technologically advanced societies. What is at issue is the reductibility, or lack thereof, of successful explanations -- not illusory ones. — Pierre-Normand
Could you provide a synthesis of this response and the original one? — Frederick KOH
My claims was and remains that the King's Touch is a distraction. — Pierre-Normand
It is the lack of confidence that there might be a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanation of the healing power the King's Trough that undermines our faith in the genuineness of the phenomenon. In the case of the chicken soup, it is easier to imagine a naturalistic explanation. — Pierre-Normand
Naturalistic explanation just is one mode of explanation among many others — Pierre-Normand
they've both charitably engaged you, — csalisbury
but you've deflected all their points in a manner most closely reaembling the stereotype of pomo sophistry — csalisbury
That being the case, why this mode of explanation and not others? — Frederick KOH
When they explain a sickness by reference to the ingestion of some harmful plant, or the failure of a crop by reference to lack of rain, or why someone fell down because she tripped on a hidden tree root, they manifest a genuine understanding of nature. Those explanations are naturalistic. They may not know why exactly plants need water to survive or why this or that plant is poisonous, and they may be tempted to supply non-naturalistic explanations for those. E.g. they may attribute intentions and powers to gods or to salient features of nature itself. — Pierre-Normand
But naturalistic/non-naturalistic is a distinction our culture makes. You are applying it to practices in theirs. Is our culture privileged. — Frederick KOH
I didn't make any claim regarding the comparative merits of human cultures. — Pierre-Normand
That seems a bit pointless, as well as off topic (for this thread, anyway). Each human culture embodies wisdom about some things and misconceptions or blindness about others. — Pierre-Normand
What is it that I presupposed? — Pierre-Normand
No, there is a chain from this that leads all the way to chicken soup and the king's touch. — Frederick KOH
That is one of the ways Weinberg explained his reductionism.
It is the lack of confidence that there might be a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanation of the healing power the King's Trough that undermines our faith in the genuineness of the phenomenon. In the case of the chicken soup, it is easier to imagine a naturalistic explanation. Such an explanation no doubt will make reference to some systemic effect of some ingredient in the soup on human physiology (or bacterial physiology). — Pierre-Normand
The belief in the power of the King's touch would be one the the things this culture is wrong about. It may even be the case that the widespread wrong belief it is false by that's cultures own lights. (A majority of people flouting a norm doesn't make it not a norm). — Pierre-Normand
Surely you know that DNA replication is something that has been explained at the level of individual molecules. — Frederick KOH
How do you apply a distinction to practices within culture that does not recognize it (the distinction) without privileging you own? — Frederick KOH
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.