then the laws of nature are the volition of that diety — Mr Phil O'Sophy
What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean?Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. You then continue to ignore Hume's definition, make up your own definition that goes straight against Hume's definitions, then go back to Hume and claim his definition is poor. — Kitty
So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. Then I guess light bending around the sun was a miracle the first time it was observed, since it was a transgression of our scientific understanding of the world at the time.Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty
Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty
Funnily enough, that's what Marx also remarked in Das Kapital: "they do not know it, but they are doing it". For example, people go to school thinking they're building a great future for themselves, but all they're actually doing is making themselves into good workers that can then be enslaved, thus perpetuating a bad future. Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. They think they are doing what's best for them, but actually, they merely contribute to the continuation of their oppression. Science operates much along the same lines. You say:Do these scientists even know what they are doing? — Coldlight
So the scientist takes the miracle of generation - of the sperm and the ovum going from a single cell into an organism with different kinds of cells, which do different kind of jobs, and tells us that the DNA contains the information that makes this generative process possible. Then the scientist tells us that the phenomenon is explained. As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... As if that makes it less of a mystery somehow. It is in this sense that the scientist does not know what he is doing. He fails to see that he has, as it were, merely explained the same phenomenon using different words, and has not rendered it any less mysterious, just shifted the mystery. I no longer wonder why the cells split and change function as they do, I now wonder how and why the DNA allows such changes to occur.This time to scientists who will baffle and mesmerise us with their explanations of the world. — Coldlight
The way people talk about science these days is almost synonymous with God sometimes.
"Science will provide the answers one day"
"Look at all the things science has given us" — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Well you have told me quite a few times to read Hume, but I'm more interested to have a discussion with you. If you want to base your points on what Hume is saying, fine, I have no issue with that.Okay Agustino, you know I like you neff, but this is the last time I respond to something you could and should have read yourself... read Hume (read the thing I linked, it is only 4 pages mate, almost the size of this entire thread...) — Kitty
What are the "laws of nature"? What does "law of nature" mean? — Agustino
Our scientific understanding of the world. — Kitty
So naturally, I respond with:Hume defines miracle as either "violation" or "transgression" of the laws of nature. — Kitty
All I did was replace "laws of nature" with "our scientific understanding of the world".So anything that is a "transgression" of our scientific understanding of the world is a miracle. — Agustino
None of you actually studied philosophy, am I to presume? — Kitty
Marx thought that capitalism is characterised by this "false consciousness" where the participants do not know what they are doing. — Agustino
As if I'm more enlightened if I use more technical jargon to describe what we observe... — Agustino
Indeed. Some people, like Zizek, would say that this sort of "blindness" is constitutive of our (social) reality. For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. Because we all - without knowing it - agree that money is valuable and has such and such a worth - that's what actually gives it that worth. Bitcoin illustrates this very well - there is no paper there. Just the tacit social agreement that it is worth this much.It pretty much seems that way too many classes of people don't know what they're doing. Science is an example of that, too. I think this is where the 'progress' (as much as I dislike the word) doesn't exist. We - psychically - keep committing the same mistakes we were committing centuries, maybe even thousands of years ago. — Coldlight
Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them.Yeah. It's the same as if it was explained in a poem using colourful language and all sorts of metaphors. It wouldn't shed any more light on the subject. — Coldlight
Okay, I might agree with regards to the philosophy class, but we're not in a philosophy class here. We're actually in the Lounge of a philosophy forum. I don't mean to continue the discussion if it's not in your interest to have a discussion on this. I don't mind that you want to bring in existing philosophical arguments that have been made by other philosophers - feel absolutely free to respond with exactly what Hume said. What did Hume say that "laws of nature" are? I am ignorant of what he said, so please enlighten me. I'm not interested in his take on miracles, so I'm not going to read the whole essay. Just point me to the part where "laws of nature" are defined, and I will read that please.This is basic in philosophy class. You're interested in topic X? Read some basics on topic X that many great philosophers have already addressed.If you still disagree, then address those weaknesses. Write an elaboration with your own arguments to support your conclusion. Ta-da! — Kitty
All I did was replace "laws of nature" with "our scientific understanding of the world". — Agustino
So is it your claim that laws of nature can be wrong?"our scientific understanding of the world" a.k.a. "laws of nature" could be wrong — Kitty
Literally that piece I took a screen shot of, just you darling. — Kitty
For example, the commodity exchange is only possible if we act as if coins really had an intrinsic worth that is different than their physical bodies - but paradoxically, it is our acting so that makes them have such an intrinsic worth in the first place. — Agustino
Yes - that's why I think that mystery, miracles and the supernatural are always within life. The difference is that some sorts of language make us aware that they are mysteries, miracles and supernatural and others conceal this fact from us, and give us the false impression that we understand them. — Agustino
To go even deeper into this, I have grown quite convinced that the important movements in history have been spiritually driven from the very beginning. Even science itself is ultimately a spiritual force - destructive as it is. And some people have historically tried to take advantage of occult powers - for example, the Nazi's connection with the occult is well-known. Many historians have argued at length that the focus on the Occult was central to the growth & decline of the Nazi regime. Communism is another example of what is ultimately a spiritual ideology - indeed, it is the spiritual roots of communism that allowed it to grow, expand and flourish. — Agustino
Please explain how I am committing the fallacy of begging the question? I fail to see it. — NKBJ
But since I presuppose one reality, one universe, I'll stick to all things that are in existence are "natural" in the sense that they obey the laws of nature. — NKBJ
.and that would be a great loss.Let's play nicely, folks, or posts will start disappearing. And not supernaturally either. — Baden
Do You Believe In Miracles and/or The Supernatural? — Agustino
I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. I also disagree with views that don't take into account the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness. I'm not up for explaining anything just for the sake of seeming to have an answer. — Coldlight
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.