It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). — Daniel Bonevac
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. — Gnomon
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion — Gnomon
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis — Tom Storm
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. — Gnomon
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?↪Gnomon
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith
First there is the problem of whether God's power comes from him having access the incredibly advance technology or if it through some kind of "magic", — dclements
Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess". :smile:Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. — Agent Smith
Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma? — Agent Smith
Yes. However, the concept of BothAnd didn't come from ancient philosophy, but from my research on ubiquitous Information. Like some pioneering scientists, I concluded that the fundamental substance of Reality is not Dualistic (energy + matter, or mind + matter), but Monistic (it's all Information in various forms : mind + energy + matter + everything else). So, the essence of BothAnd is Monism. The "BothAnd" label is simply an indicator that truth is not polarized, but a continuum. :smile:You want to, in a sense, incorporate the best of both (opposing) worlds, that's what we recognize as the aurea mediocritas (the golden mean), in your quest to gain a complete understanding of reality. You need both halves (the yin & the yang). — Agent Smith
The "excluded middle" and "non-contradiction" rules are presuming that you have access to absolute all-encompassing Truth. But the BothAnd rule assumes that we humans are all limited to small bits & pieces of perfect Platonic Truth. That's why I compare it to Einstein's Relativity : the truth you see depends on your "frame of reference", your limited perspective. So, for us earth-bound truth-seekers, it's all "middle ground". :cool:However, as I've always been concerned about, doesn't your Both/And Principle violate 2 laws of logic viz. the law of the excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction (given a proposition p, either p is true or ~p is true but not the case that both p and ~p are true/false at the same time). As an illustration, either theism is true or atheism is true, but both can't be true and both can't be false. There can be no middle ground betwixt theism and atheism. — Agent Smith
Since I consider Meta-Physics to be the sole purview of Philosophy, I wouldn't agree that we shouldn't discuss non-physical (e.g. mental) topics. What else are we going to talk about, the weather? Even so, we cannot make any absolute claims about non-verifiable or non-falsifiable bits of truth. Philosophy can only allow us to get "Closer to Truth". As the link below notes, despite our best efforts to "know the mind of god", philosophers, by "exploring the deepest questions" can only hope to improve their own personal understanding. Beware of prophets who claim to reveal the absolute Truth. However, the Enformationism thesis is intended to suggest a way to approximate a Theory of Everything.The point is we can't discuss metaphysics for it's impossible to justify any claims we make therein (pure speculation is all that we can manage). . . .
By the way, Nagarjuna's tetralemma is known as the middle way because it rejects/negates extremes. — Agent Smith
No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. Yet, that's where Philosophy comes in. It picks up where Science leaves off. Science provides pragmatic knowledge about Nature, while Philosophy provides reasonable opinions about Culture (the human aspect of nature). By "reasonable", I don't mean absolutely true facts, but merely ideas, whose logic has been tested in the fires of well-informed disagreement, to remove the dross.I'll leave you with a question: Can metaphysical claims be verified/falsified? — Agent Smith
No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. — Gnomon
Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system.Factually wrong statement by Gnomon. — Nickolasgaspar
-None of the above is the subject of this discussion and of the questions I raised.Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system. — Gnomon
If you are interested about the components of Science or its nature in general the following lecture is the best you can find.So, the basic idea is that science has two components: — Agent Smith
because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". — Nickolasgaspar
-correct and I point out that not all "thinking in general" qualifies as a philosophical inquire.Perhaps you've described thinking in general — jas0n
-that was a long shot but you are guessed right! I am a mammal too !Don't know about you, but I'm a mammal. — jas0n
A big part of philosophy is us figuring out how to live together while not starving in the cold with rotting teeth and an intestinal parasite dangling on our thigh. — jas0n
-I am not interested in the reasons they are forced to advocate things....I am just pointing out the obvious.Philosophy is an exercise of frustration....if they seek comfort they should turn to Theology, but calling "theology" philosophy ...that is a dishonest practice.They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths," — jas0n
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.