This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found".
— Janus
Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.
Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital. — John Harris
Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.
Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really. ]
Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.
Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point. — John Harris
Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found. — John Harris
This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found". — Janus
Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being. — Locks
That's why something being actually found is vital. — John Harris
Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.
— John Harris
Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.
Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.
— John Harris
you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.
It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.
That's why something being actually found is vital.
— John Harris
Which, again, is positivism.
Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.
— Locks
Can you explain how the assumption that everything that is "natural;" is capable of being found is supported?
I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is. — John Harris
I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.
— John Harris
I'm sure I'm not the only participant here who notices that your typical modus operandi is to mock, belittle and condescend to anyone who tries to interact with you.
But regardless, almost every statement you have made in this thread has been textbook positivism, along the lines of 'if 'the soul' was real, then science would have found it, and as science hasn't found it, then it must not be real'.
The better question is can you explain your erroneous assumption that something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things? — John Harris
And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism, — John Harris
if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection. — Thanatos Sand
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms. — Thanatos Sand
It's based on the well-supported assumption it hasn't been found yet in a world that has been well-scanned by near-exhaustive means. — Thanatos Sand
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms. — Thanatos Sand
Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking. — Thanatos Sand
Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics.
I have not assumed anything either way but have instead eschewed assumption and allowed for the possibility that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". There certainly seem to be some careless readers here!
Also you tendentious phrase " all the exhaustive means" is just the senses, and explanatory inference, as I already explained.
And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism,
— John Harris
OK to ease your soul, here are a few examples of Thanatos Sand/John Harris advocating positivism.
if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
— Thanatos Sand
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand
It's based on the well-supported assumption it hasn't been found yet in a world that has been well-scanned by near-exhaustive means.
— Thanatos Sand
Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand
Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking.
— Thanatos Sand
All of these are textbook cases of 'verificationism':
Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics.
this is exactly what you're saying throughout this thread, and the only defense you can offer, is that you're not, actually, saying it. You can't even own your own statements.
the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right. — John Harris
Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been. — John Harris
Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been. — John Harris
You're not even capable of owning your own statements or making an argument for them. All you can do when challenged is resort to insults. — Wayfarer
No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point. — John Harris
And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. — John Harris
I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar. — John Harris
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.