It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game. — frank
This notion that the idea of the in-itself is rendered valueless by virtue of its absence from ordinary conversation is an apparently clever nugget, but pretty far off point.
The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. Yes, it ends up being ineffable, but that's just incidental. — frank
How about a method? — ssu
I can’t say I agree with such a blanket approval of what is known as ‘science’, but I do agree that the process of checking explanations is a good thing. It is the entire scientific method - not the narrow section in the middle that those who call themselves ‘scientists’ today primarily concern themselves with - that has contributed most to our positive progress. Without continually bringing it back to this broader context, ‘science’ quickly loses its way. — Possibility
What's that then?
As in, if you what to claim that there is good science and bad science, we might listen better if you can tell us how to differentiate them. — Banno
There's a distinction between knowing stuff and doing stuff.
Science falls on the side of knowing stuff. Sure, what you know will be used poorly; but even in the face of that I'm not disincline to say that knowing stuff is worthwhile in that it opens up more options for what we can do, as well as allowing us to better understand the consequences for what we do.
There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science.
There'd be another argument claiming that the science is neutral, and our demise is the result of failure to progress morally and socially.
There'd be yet another argument that if we had done more science, so that we better understood our plight, we might have been able to avoid it.
Three distinct narratives. Which to choose? — Banno
‘scientists’ distance themselves from such responsibilities. — Possibility
There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science. — Banno
Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial? — Jack Cummins
I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. — Jack Cummins
But what if we evolved to be able to sense extra dimensions or some such. Could we get closer to knowing reality that way? — frank
Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church — counterpunch
Nobody who knows the least thing about Kant would ever make that claim. — Wayfarer
I am not Amish, whoever he is. — Jack Cummins
I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. — Jack Cummins
As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. — Jack Cummins
So the idea is that we're sort of projecting an environment for the things we encounter. — frank
It's that we don't apparently learn that, for instance, physical objects have spacial and temporal extension. — frank
The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. — frank
Kant is a prime example of philosophy confirming the position of the Church - that science is suspect of heresy; — counterpunch
I just did this continuing education class that covered the history of vaccines. The change in human life created by that little scientific biscuit is huge.
But it helped increase the size of the human population with devastating effects on the environment.
Good for whom? — frank
It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population — FrancisRay
This is catastrophically false. — Mww
I have no familiarity with anything Kantian that sustains such an assertion — Mww
The proponents of scientism define science to be so different from political or economic investigations. Yet one can be objective, trying to observe reality without any personal or ideological agenda and do this from the viewpoint of politics, economy, even looking at the religious aspects using the same methods as in scientific research.I wish to discuss science as an understanding of reality - relative to a religious, political and economic ideological understanding of reality. Do they describe different things? — counterpunch
The Kantian “an sich” of the full “ding an sich“, is that which is not ever encountered by us. “In itself” makes explicit “not us”, and it is quite obvious we can say nothing of that of which we are necessarily excluded. — Mww
The argument for the thing-in-itself is about apriori knowledge. — frank
No, it isn’t. It is about the limit of human experience, or, which is the same thing, a posteriori knowledge. — Mww
I am not Amish, whoever he is.
— Jack Cummins
The Amish are a religious sect in the US that forgoes the use of modern technology. — counterpunch
Kant is subjectivist. — counterpunch
In reality, we see the world as it really is. — counterpunch
:rofl: — TheMadFool
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.