I think the God one is less easy to predict. It might be beyond science. It might not be. — Coben
If such an issue, as any of these, is beyond science, is it beyond any way of knowing? I would say 'not necessarily'. — Coben
No? Then how will you obtain (scientifically-acceptable and -useful) evidence? For without evidence, science can do nothing. And there is no evidence. Thus... — Pattern-chaser
If such an issue, as any of these, is beyond science, is it beyond any way of knowing? I would say 'not necessarily'.
— Coben
Beyond knowing? Yes. Beyond our speculations and guesswork? No. In RL, there are many issues that an individual human cannot solve, so they guess. [Even when the issue has been solved by other humans, but this human doesn't know it.] It's a defining characteristic of humans, this guessing-without-sufficient-evidence, and we're not too bad at it. So we can guess, and we can speculate, but to no avail. Our guesses will remain guesses, unfounded by anything more intellectually substantial. [And a guess remains a guess if we call that guess an axiom or assumption, or even if we call upon Occam's Razor, which is not a logical principle but a simple rule of thumb.] — Pattern-chaser
How do you deal with the claim that this is simply relativism, that the only truth we can know is the truth 'for us'?
— Wayfarer
I think I would have to write a treatise to get across what I try to get across here, but then is it worth it, would anyone read it? — leo
I have created a new thread starting with your response, as it's tangential to the topic of this thread - is it OK if I post that? — Wayfarer
I think the God one is less easy to predict. It might be beyond science. It might not be. — Coben
No? Then how will you obtain (scientifically-acceptable and -useful) evidence? For without evidence, science can do nothing. And there is no evidence. Thus... — Pattern-chaser
I was talking about the future history of science. You are saying it is beyond science, so this includes all future possible scientific theory and research. — Coben
If you want to argue that the only possible knowledge comes through science
[...]
You really think you can scientifically demonstrate all the things you know to be true? — Coben
I don't! No! I am arguing exactly the opposite of these sentiments! I'm appalled that I have expressed myself so badly that you think I'm championing science as the one and only knowledge-gathering tool we have. I apologise for my laxity. — Pattern-chaser
Or maybe it's fine if you post it like that, if it isn't exposed systematically then that leaves more room for imagination, and that might give rise to new ideas, and I think there needs to be some dose of imagination to see that point of view. — leo
I see truth as an ideal that we strive towards but never reach. Something absolutely certain that we hope to hang onto no matter what amidst the apparent unpredictability of existence. Many claim to have found truth, but what have they found? They are deeply convinced of something, they hang onto it no matter what, but is there anything more to truth than this? If others do not agree with their truth, is it that they do not see the truth, or that they see differently? — leo
Very generally, the ordinary man, the hoi polloi, was enchanted by, and captured by, the veil of appearances; the task of philosophy was awakening out of that illusory state and to a greater reality (as per the classic Platonist analogy of The Cave.) — Wayfarer
That natural selection operates in a way analogous to the the processes of experience, observation and experiment is arguably a valid way to think about evolution provided we do not fall into anthropomorphization by imputing human-like intention to the process. — Janus
I don't agree in the least, I think it's a case where biological theories or metaphors are extended well past their actual domain of applicability. Apart from anything else, it amounts to subordinating philosophy, reason, and everything else about us, to the implicit aim of propagation and survival — Wayfarer
The truth as it looks to him may not be the truth, and he is not insisting that it is. But he insists that there is “some such thing to see”. What he shows us is a likeness of what the beings must be, that is, an image. He too is a poet, literally a maker. The Forms are, ironically, images. Those who read Plato and think that they have ascended the cave because the Forms, the eidos, the things themselves as they are in themselves, have been revealed, are simply seeing new images on the cave wall, images created by Plato. — Fooloso4
Piaget, Dewey and James, and Evan Thompson see a compatibility between the 'aims' of organic evolution and reason. Thompson goes so far as to talk about the organizational directedness of self-organizing systems as a forerunner of human cognition. Piaget would extend this self-organizing foundation further back to inorganic and finally cosmological processes, in a move that turns creative self-organization into an a priori of existence. — Joshs
That is why I think the idea of an unfolding telos has to be present in evolutionary thought. — Wayfarer
The Forms are, ironically, images. Those who read Plato and think that they have ascended the cave because the Forms, the eidos, the things themselves as they are in themselves, have been revealed, are simply seeing new images on the cave wall, images created by Plato. — Fooloso4
It does not simply reduce intentionality to mechanism — Joshs
Anything not understood appears to be magic. — Janus
But, nevertheless, I believe that in the metaphysics of the Republic, there is an underlying sense of the 'ascent to truth'. It is made obvious in the analogy of the divided line, which divides the kinds of knowledge from lower (pistis, doxa) to higher (dianoia, noesis). — Wayfarer
Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. — Wayfarer
When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads (metanoia) and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. — Wayfarer
Platonism generally says ... — Wayfarer
But the forms transcend existence — Wayfarer
So, do we have an adequate grasp of the fact—even if we should consider it in many ways—that what is entirely, is entirely knowable; and what in no way is, is in every way unknowable? (477a)
Not according to the argument in the Republic. — Fooloso4
The worse for the Republic then. — Terrapin Station
By what criteria would we be saying that some occurrences are things in themselves and some aren't? — Terrapin Station
In some cases, such as shadows and reflections, it is easy enough to make the distinction, — Fooloso4
Take away the things that they are shadows and images of and the shadows and images disappear.
To be clear, I think the idea of things in themselves is problematic as is the idea that shadows and reflections are not real or do not exist. — Fooloso4
That's the point I'm making. Shadows and images are something, they're "things-in-themselves"--discarding them via just arbitrarily or by fiat putting them into a separate bin doesn't make much sense. — Terrapin Station
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.