I have no argument with those who admit science can’t explain everything. — Wayfarer
You are bang on target — Kenosha Kid
But science already does this. — Kenosha Kid
A better justification for meaningful unscientific questions needs to be put forward — Kenosha Kid
Could you be clearer about the two questions you imagine to be here please, because under one understanding of what you are saying the "why" questions both have exactly the same, entirely mundane response: "because it is daylight and your wall is painted red", which would seem to indicate that they are, in fine, precisely the same question.I cannot personally explain why I experience a particular hue of red when I look at my dining room wall -- that is a scientific-seeming question that is unanswered -- but I can explain why that perception persists under fixed lighting conditions -- that is a scientific question that is answered.
I can point to quantum mechanics where the law of the excluded middle does not hold — Kenosha Kid
That is more a case of asking whether the present king if France is bald or not. — Pfhorrest
How can reason be the ground if you re not conscious of your reason — Pop
Consciousness = experience + emotion. — Mww
Consciousness is equivalent to experience. I assume this is what you meant. — Pop
The input is information, and the output is integrated information. please consider. — Pop
but overall the story in science is ever-increasing speculation - ‘knowing more and more about less and less’, one saying has it. — Wayfarer
Overall, I do agree that science is becoming more holistic and less materialistic — Wayfarer
Apologies, it was all I had time for at the moment. — Wayfarer
Could you be clearer about the two questions you imagine to be here please, because under one understanding of what you are saying the "why" questions both have exactly the same, entirely mundane response: "because it is daylight and your wall is painted red", which would seem to indicate that they are, in fine, precisely the same question. — jkg20
OK, I understand, you seem to be of the opinion, shared by quite a few philosophers and scientists it must be said, that every time we see anything, mental imaging is occuring. How would you convince someone who denied this? I mean, suppose someone were to say to you "for me, mental imagery is the kind of thing I might engage in as I day dream, or try to bring to mind the look of that woman I saw yesterday, etc etc but it is not the kind of thing I engage in, or at least not typically, when I just look at a wall painted red". Looking at such a wall might of coure provoke someone into think about some red headed woman, and that might involve mental imagery, but what is the empirical evidence, or philosophical argument, that every time anyone sees anything that there is mental imagery going on? Are you relying on something like the old, and much contested, arguments from illusion or hallucination? Or is there something else you would bring to bear in response to the mental imagery sceptic?how mental imaging occurs
OK, I understand, you seem to be of the opinion, shared by quite a few philosophers and scientists it must be said, that every time we see anything, mental imaging is occuring. — jkg20
what is the (....) philosophical argument, that every time anyone sees anything that there is mental imagery going on? — jkg20
but overall the story in science is ever-increasing speculation - ‘knowing more and more about less and less’, one saying has it.
— Wayfarer
I don't think that's a reasonable point. — Kenosha Kid
If more and more scientific theory is predicated on mathematical proofs, but fails in the empirical proofs that justify the mathematics.......isn’t that ever-increasing speculation? — Mww
There might be some scientists who do that, and some scientific areas where it happens — Wayfarer
You are bang on target to say that bridging the gap between philosophy and science, even if it is just to categorise questions as scientific or unscientific, requires casting questions in some mutually understandable way, and phenomonology is a great example of how to do this because it is part of both science and philosophy (as the two do influence one another). — Kenosha Kid
there are no meaningful non-scientific questions — Kenosha Kid
So we both should slap Wayfarer on the wrists, but that might stop him typing which would be no fun. — Kenosha Kid
There does exist a common language to discuss meaningful but not necessarily scientific questions — Kenosha Kid
My gun-to-my-head answer would be: there are no meaningful non-scientific questions. — Kenosha Kid
Is the question of whether there are meaningful non-scientific questions a scientific questions? — Pfhorrest
Yeah, well, when I was 12, my dad sure wanted to know why I wrecked the car. And he was quite adamant about obtaining an answer.
It may be the case there are no meaningful questions for science that don’t have scientific answers, but Everydayman isn’t the scientist, and non-scientific answers for him belong legitimately to meaningful questions he himself generates. — Mww
why did you crash the car?" would have a scientific answer, not that it's a question for scientists per se, although on a thread about Materialism and Consciousness, I had mental phenomena more in mind. — Kenosha Kid
Why did you crash the car can only be answered empirically when posed as, “why did the car crash?”. But these are different questions, each with its own proprietary meaningfulness. — Mww
he did say speculation, but edited it to specialization — Kenosha Kid
Is the question of whether there are meaningful non-scientific questions a scientific question? — Pfhorrest
What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.”
The phrase ‘Everything is relative’ is spoken emphatically by the very people for whom the atom or its elements are still the ultimate reality. ‘Everything is relative’, they say, but at the same time they declare as indubitable truth that the mind is nothing but a product of cerebral processes. This combination of gross objectivism and bottomless subjectivism represents a synthesis of logically irreconcilable, contradictory principles of thought, which is equally unfortunate from the point of view of philosophical consistency and from that of ethical and cultural value. — Emil Brunner
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.