I think you lost consistency of definition of 'nature' at this last point.
Per your definition of nature, the the supernatural would mean breaking the laws of normality. I don't think normality has laws — Yohan
Making up shit (i.e. believing) is a lot easier and safer than rigorously observing, experimentally testing and peer reviewing (i.e. knowing).Why do so many people believe in miracles and the supernatural? — TheMadFool
Maybe that's true for 'religious scientists' ... In the main, however, scientific practices are driven by (re)search for interesting, unsolved problems (more difficult and greater scope, the better) and not impossible-to-solve, inexplicable "miracles". C'mon, Fool. :roll:... religious people and scientists both are on a quest for miracles.
Why do so many people believe in miracles and the supernatural?
— TheMadFool
Making up shit (i.e. believing) is a lot easier and safer than rigorously observing, experimentally testing and peer reviewing (i.e. knowing).
... religious people and scientists both are on a quest for miracles.
Maybe that's true for 'religious scientists' ... In the main, however, scientific practices are driven by (re)search for interesting, unsolved problems (more difficult and greater scope, the better) and not impossible-to-solve, inexplicable "miracles". C'mon, Fool. :roll: — 180 Proof
Onanistic wordplay. — 180 Proof
Accordingly, within many religious communities, "miracles" happen every day, Fool, and I doubt any scientific community would designate as "miracles" any unexplained, problematic (or outside the prevailing paradigm) events – there aren't scientific criteria for determining whether or not a phenomenon is "miraculous". I'd expect, therefore, no "reaction" out of the ordinary in either case. The word "niracle" is just confabulatory shorthand (outside of a laboratory, or experimental, context) for what the fuck is / was that? like 'god-of-the-gaps' (we don't know or even have a clue). :eyes: — 180 Proof
Is this a metaphysical claim, or an empirical claim? Deductive or inductive? Can you provide a syllogism or a way in which I can empirically test this claim?Mental properties are properties of matter. Mental properties might not have physical qualities but they are properties of the physical world(matter). — Nickolasgaspar
How do we logically deduce or induce such a thing exists? Or empirically verify that what we observe and measure exists independently of our observation of it?Natural(phenomenon) is any observable measurable event that occurs without the intervention of an thinking agent and without breaking established laws of nature. — Nickolasgaspar
Then we should be able to observe and measure logic?-"Is math natural, unnatural, supernatural?"
-All human languages of logic are part of nature. — Nickolasgaspar
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There can be metaphysical theories, ethical theories, economic theories etc. Theories are not the sole tool of the physics.Theories describe Natural processes — Nickolasgaspar
My question was how does one (including a methodological naturalist) verify ontological truth?Science(Methodological Naturalism) doesn't exclude the supernatural from being an actual realm. It only excludes it from its Frameworks because we currently don't have any tools or methods to verify and investigate that type of ontology. — Nickolasgaspar
I don't need to assume reality is physical. I only have to assume it is consistent.My "assertions" are Pragmatic Necessities that everyone needs to accept and act in relation to their Limitations and Regularities or else we endanger our existence. Even you bother to get up, earn money, answer my comments.....because its a Necessity that you need to play along. Our Cataleptic Impressions and everything that is verified objectively is all that we have to work with sir! — Nickolasgaspar
Sure pragmatically the world has effects on us. It is real in at least a pragmatic sense. But for me, the ultimate goal of philosophy is to arrive at absolute certainty. Otherwise, I will always be riddled with a sense of doubt. Never totally sure about anything. Who wants to live like that?-Well you sound like you are misusing the word "know". If you stated that you can not provide an absolute proof I would be with you on that.....but knowledge is based on the available facts within our Raw Impressions...so yes you know that you are awaken and you act according to that condition. — Nickolasgaspar
That there are other minds is indeed based on faith, in my case.-What do you mean....do you act on a faith based belief when you respond to a comment, kiss your wife, enjoy listening to your children, watch your favorite players on tv. — Nickolasgaspar
Example the assumption that the appearance of matter and the sensation of hardness proves there is mind independent matter.What are those foundational assumptions...do you mean to make an argument based on a begging the question fallacy. — Nickolasgaspar
I reject certainty of it, that is all. What better place to enquire about it further than on a philosophy forum? I can ask...why come to a philosophy forum if we aren't going to question such things. This isn't a science forum. I can go to a science forum if I want to learn about what popular science has to say.So you are here talking with others while rejecting that we all share some kind of reality with a limited access to it??????? So why on earth are you in a philosophical forum? — Nickolasgaspar
data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Not sure I get you. I mean I don't get you. Anything that can be questioned is probably not foundational. I can't question foundational axioms like the law of non-contradiction. However, I can question at least some of the general assumptions of naturalistic science.How on earth can we question "foundational assumptions" without data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Are we going to play the game...here is how I want reality to be?
Are you asking from other people..who question their existence to pseudo philosophize with you ?
I don't get what you are asking. — Nickolasgaspar
None other than precipitating searches for an explanation which may or may not imply new, currently unknown, physical laws at work. Relativity, QFT, statistical mechanics, evolution, etc still hold. — 180 Proof
data or methods that can inform us about alternative assumptions? Not sure I get you. I mean I don't get you. Anything that can be questioned is probably not foundational. I can't question foundational axioms like the law of non-contradiction. However, I can question at least some of the general assumptions of naturalistic science. — Yohan
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.