You misunderstood my point.The Church was the final authority on all matters philosophical and scientific. To challenge this authority was to risk the fate of Galileo. Descartes begins by doubting everything, which means doubting the teachings of the Church. He replaces the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking self and reason — Fooloso4
he seemed to be trying to hand the authority of reason to the church. — frank
He was obviously addressing his philosophical ideas to them. — frank
No argument needed. — Fooloso4
Your assertion is quite simply false. — counterpunch
He's basically right. Descartes was a mathematician. The Church could dictate what math problems could be examined and which ones not. He was offering them a more enlightened view. — frank
We can do this precisely because the implications of science can legitimately be limited to that which is necessary to survival, staring with magma energy - which is the only source of energy large, constant and concentrated enough to meet our needs. If we don't harness magma energy, we cannot survive; and so it is the existential necessity to which we can agree, not science as an ideology per se. — counterpunch
I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer - it simply has a plausible theory, a way forward. Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. — Possibility
I agree that faith is not the absence of doubt or reason, but it is held in the absence of what we would count as evidence (i.e. empirical evidence). That said, empirical evidence does not amount (always at least) to certainty, so it could be said that all substantive (as opposed to tautological) belief is held in the absence of certainty.
One response to uncertainty (lack of definitive evidence or proof) is to suspend judgement entirely. Another response is to adopt provisional hypotheses. And another is to believe despite the absence of evidence; and this last is to have faith. — Janus
Typically subjectivist. — counterpunch
From Meditation IV — counterpunch
This is Descartes rescuing his "certain truth" that he exist, from the oblivion of solipsism with reference to God. — counterpunch
But how can I know there is not something different from those things that I have just considered, of which one cannot have the slightest doubt? Is there not some God, or some other being by name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?
He who lived well hid himself well.
I mean, you can read his biography. He was an amazing guy besides being a genius.
— frank
Yeah, especially when he cut up live animals. — baker
Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without — Confucius
Ah, citing that most venerable of sources, the Times of India. — Banno
Only the last of these three options can be acted upon. You cannot act on entirely suspended judgement. Provisional hypotheses enable you to run controlled experiments, but you still need to make a prediction - this requires faith, and is the only way to achieve empirical evidence, let alone certainty. — Possibility
The level of intellectual rigour in the last few pages is appalling, from all sides. — Banno
The level of intellectual rigour in the last few pages is appalling, from all sides. — Banno
First of all, I think that clinging to a thwarted 400 year old ideal is unproductive. Let it go. You won’t achieve peace by citing past injuries. Or perhaps it is that you’re not looking for peace, but for capitulation. Or will an official apology suffice? — Possibility
I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer — Possibility
Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. — Possibility
The ‘answer’ will not come until science takes moral responsibility for conclusions drawn from research data, and agrees to work with the ideologue through ethics, arts, humanities, metaphysics and communications - not pander to prevalent ideology, but help to critically examine and restructure our ideological motives so that we are more self-aware and sceptical consumers of information. — Possibility
When science claims to be ‘neutral’ information, then it’s indistinguishable from fake news, and all science can do is add to the noise. Instead, science is responsible for presenting ‘needed’ information - rendered as a system-wide distribution of attention and effort in relation to time. A way forward. Not the only way forward, nor the ‘best’ by any and all standards, let alone the objective truth. And the more narrowly defined its system, the more ignorant its claim. — Possibility
This is a case in point. You’re talking about survival of humanity in our current state of energy consumption. It’s a tantalisingly simple solution for a very limited problem, but is it the right one? — Possibility
But apparently the eventual ‘bite’ won’t be science’s fault - it will be humanity’s fault for choosing the easy fix without considering the broader implications that scientists currently dismiss as ‘not science’ because they can’t yet be empirically tested. And you’ll be long dead by then and won’t give a rat’s. — Possibility
In a dynamic system built on a limited relation to both energy and time (and it IS limited), simply unlocking additional sources only hastens self-destruction - but it just depends on how narrowly you choose to perceive the system. But what do I know? I’m not a scientist. — Possibility
But regardless of how it happened, the advent of science has had an extraordinarily, overwhelmingly positive impact on how we live. — Banno
What you fishing for?
I tend to lean on pragmatism, is that an interesting fish? — Shawn
Get what? Put it together. — Banno
science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects them
— TheMadFool
On time? — baker
On time?
— baker
It's too early to comment. — TheMadFool
It's too early to comment.
— TheMadFool
Then it's too early for praise. — baker
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.