And I also agree at least some of these communities will be characterised by delusion or denial, such as young-earth creationism or many abhorrent religious cults and movements, but by no means all of them are, there are still very many able scientists who profess Christianity, and who don't see any fundamental conflict or division between science and faith. — Wayfarer
Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans. — Clarky
↪Rocco Rosano: — Wayfarer
Yet your struggle with the issue continues and you will make a decision.
This will show your brain is up to the task. Mainly because it sounds like that's what your current job is and what you are paid for. Many justice systems have appeal systems in case the judged feel utterly wronged by your decision. I am sure you can consult with the legal records of similar cases. If you are the final arbiter for your 'water tab,' case then have faith in your training. Consult and make the call!
As long as you are not relying on the supernatural to send you a decision, you will be fine. — universeness
Yes, but that one decision does not come about williy nilly. It is not solely my decision. There are procedures I follow. I check the legislation, I check jurisprudence and I read up on the opinion of the authors in cases alike. If I am feeling very meticulous I might even look up the opinions of courts in other jurisdictions. I read up on the state of the art concerning standards of care and try to gauge the meaning of the legislators behind the article at stake. I present my opinion not as my gut feeling but as informed legal judgment, the steps of which everyone can follow. — Tobias
There are however metaphysical assumptions made in law. For instance that I should follow the supreme court's judgments. (Not mandatory in NL though, but still often done) That I should care about what learned scholars had to say about such a matter. That the goal of the legislator can be deduced from the parliamentary documents. Moreover law also assumes people have a choice in doing what they do and so are liable for tort when they make a choice that harms others. Those are a lot of assumptions revealing the rationalistic metaphysics behind law. — Tobias
Yet... reformulating the problem in physical terms brings me nowhere. That shows that metaphysics cannot be reduced to physics. There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about. The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of — Tobias
Sounds like a valid version of the scientific method as applied in the legal profession, to me. — universeness
But this is the kind of definition/application of the term 'metaphysics' that I support, although it's probably more 'metajudicial, or metajurisprudence.' I notice you didn't mention god once or any other supernatural source, that you might consult, to help you with your decision-making. — universeness
I don't see how that follows from what you describe above?
You are considering 'guidelines,' in what sense are guidelines or suggestions based on the similar experiences of other legislators not 'physical.' These other examples really happened, they are not merely based on the fabled decisions of Solomon in the old testament! or the fabled judgments of god via Moses when he came down from mount Sinai! I would be a lot more concerned for your position if they were. — universeness
I was only kiddin Ken — universeness
The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken. — universeness
Well, as I've pointed out, metaphysics in the classical / Aristotlean sense of "first philosophy" concerns how we must look at ... not merely, in the "perspectival" (relativist) sense, "how we (happen to) see" ...It goes back to the idea of the observer role in perception, or even science, with the relative understandings implied. This does entail a certain amount of relativism and may mean that part of the problem of the gaps is because there is a perceptual element to any understanding of reality at all. — Jack Cummins
Ohh, no, it is everything but the scientific method. It is a version of scholasticism — Tobias
However what I will not do to substantiate the common expected reasonable conduct norm, is to ask 10.000 people what they think in this case reasonable conduct would be — Tobias
But metaphysics as a term for 'the search for the supernatural' has really nothing to do with philosophy. — Tobias
What I use the example for is to show you made a metaphysical move, namely reduce all our knowledge to physical knowledge and all 'science' to the positivistic natural sciences, whereas in law we deal with a normative science (or art, the judgment is still out) which is not (and arguably cannot be) conducted with the same natural scientific concepts. — Tobias
The judgment that we o ultimately displays the metaphysical assumptions inherent in law, that people have a choice to open or close the tap, that if they possess a modicum of rationality, they should figure out the concsequences, that the world is not a deterministic place because otherwise it would not make sense to hold people morally culpable on normative grounds, but only on utilitarian grounds etc. — Tobias
I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do — Clarky
I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. — Clarky
Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical. — Clarky
:fire: — 180 Proof
"Philosophy — metaphysics =" sophistry. — 180 Proof
That's epistemology and logic to me. IME, Smith, 'knowledge-ignorance' occurs before 'reflections on knowledge-ignorance' (i.e. the latter only clarifies the former à la Witty) :point: — 180 Proof
" :fire: " usually means I find the quote or entire post illuminating — 180 Proof
I've tried to – I think we must – with this approach (last paragraph) :point: ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof
My proposal isn't just "neti neti" ... Take the red pill, mi amigo, and see how deep the rabbit holes – my links – go. :cool: — 180 Proof
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.