scientists need to stick to science and stop trying to think of themselves as philosophers. — Mentalusion

Yes, one just needs to translate "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"" — Kippo

scientists need to stick to science and stop trying to think of themselves as philosophers — Mentalusion

Yes, one just needs to translate
"Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"
to
"Why the goal of the human species could feasibly be to create artificial general intelligence." — Kippo

True, I guess my point was just that to the extent they start asking questions about what the purpose or goals of life are, they have, to that extent, ceased to be scientists since the question is not capable of scientific resolution via testing of hypotheses in light of evidence. My intuition there is based on the fact that you would first have to agree on what the appropriate method for determining what the purpose and/or goals of life were. Since no one is committed to accepting scientific methodology as the right way to go about doing that, even if a scientist want to propose the scientific method as the way of doing that, their efforts to persuade or justify that use could not (non-circuitously) be based initially on scientific method. Therefore, to the extent they would need to hammer out methodological considerations independently of the scientific method before hand, they would not, to that very extent, be scientists - whatever you want to call them. — Mentalusion

scientists need to stick to science and stop trying to think of themselves as philosophers. Usually, it seems to me, their grounds for doing so rest on an attempt to make self-referentially fallacious appeals to authority, where they try to get people to believe that because they are experts in one field (science), that entitles them to credibility in another (philosophy).

More importantly, why would they want to venture outside of the empirical certainty of the scientific method to wallow aimlessly in the abstract quagmire of the philosophical? The fact any one of them would want to already raises questions about their motives and undermines their credibility regardless of their authoritative status. — Mentalusion

Thinking about the purpose of life does not require any philosophical training. Anybody can bring to bear their interests and enthusiasms on the topic. But there will never be a purpose to existence. There might be goals, however. — Kippo

True, I guess my point was just that to the extent they start asking questions about what the purpose or goals of life are, they have, to that extent, ceased to be scientists since the question is not capable of scientific resolution via testing of hypotheses in light of evidence. My intuition there is based on the fact that you would first have to agree on what the appropriate method for determining what the purpose and/or goals of life were. Since no one is committed to accepting scientific methodology as the right way to go about doing that, even if a scientist want to propose the scientific method as the way of doing that, their efforts to persuade or justify that use could not (non-circuitously) be based initially on scientific method. Therefore, to the extent they would need to hammer out methodological considerations independently of the scientific method before hand, they would not, to that very extent, be scientists - whatever you want to call them. — Mentalusion

Yes, one just needs to translate
"Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"
to
"Why the goal of the human species could feasibly be to create artificial general intelligence." — Kippo

The notion that ‘the universe has no purpose or meaning’ is simply a consequence of reading philosophical conclusions into methodological axioms. For the purposes of natural science, such questions are put aside. But to then declare that science ‘shows’ or ‘proves’ that there is no purpose is one of the grand illusions of modernity, because it simply says no such thing.

‘Teleonomy’ was a word coined because it was impossible to deal with the purposive activities of even the most simple of organisms with reference to purposeful activity.

As for the aim of transcending the merely subjective - that has always been a central aim of philosophy. Indeed science itself was born out of that spirit. Where it degenerated into anti-philosophy was in the decision to recognise only what could be validated by sense-data as real — Wayfarer

The philosophy of science also concerns science, but it's not science. The sentence "this computer here" concerns this computer here, but it's not this computer here. — Mentalusion

I interpret "purpose" to mean an externally directed goal; whereas a "goal" per se is self driven.

Thus God can give purpose (if you believe in her). But humankind can set its own goal.

So I am saying I can go along with your notion of "purpose" if you really mean "goal". But not if you really mean "purpose", in the sense that I use those words. — Kippo

• Notice also that the militant atheist Richard Dawkins introduced "archeo" and "neo" purpose..