Leave it to the scientist to equate linguistical sentiments to mathematics. If you sincerely didn't see the point in my last post there's little point in argueing for me. I think you should read some Hume, though.
You imply that religion answers ultimate origin? I always thought it does the contrary.
Depending on the religion, it definitely does. I.e. 'God created everything, and God himself didn't come from anything - he was the beginning'. One can argue about the usefulness or quality of such an answer, but it's definitely 'an' answer to a philosophical question.
I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
Any Philosophical question answered by science will be no longer considered as a philosophical question.
So I keep hearing, but I still haven't heard an example of any one question this has happened to. It's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that I'm curious what you're referring to, as in general philosophy is about being curious and has in that way 'bred' science.
Wonder what would Kant thought of space and time, if he would knew general relativity.
I think he actually had some theories on space and time. I might be confusing him with other French prodigies, but if I'm correct he was one of the people who tried to lay down a ground theory for physics, developping on Newtonian mechanics.
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
And where do you think curiosity comes from? Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
Probably, but I think my Qualitative Research Methods teacher will have more to say on that than Wikipedia.
That said, 'theory' is a very widely used term with lots of meanings. I'll agree on the 'standard truth' point, but a theory can also be synonymous for a somewhat thought-out idea. Plus, EW is simply stating his belief that the idea of a soul will become a standard truth in the future. Knowing his position in these discussions it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up blowing it out of proportion, but so far his post makes sense. I can actually agree with a lot of that; I have never seen spirituality as an 'enemy' of science or such, but rather as a foggy map on feelings and consciousness that science may one day explain. Sure, we now know that it's not Juppiter throwing bolts of lightning at us, but the basic gist of "thunder and lightning are bad shit when encountered randomly in the wild" is the thought that counts here.
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza.
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
And I dont think that FDfederation dont want discussions on the things linked here. It would be pretty stupid to link interesting stuffs and not discuss it. If I want to see interesting links on scientific articles, than I would rather check other forums or newsletters (as I do).
Yeah, that would indeed be pretty stupid. However,
If you want to debate, go make another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
That's why this whole situation is funny. FD is trying to do some kind of weird bypassing-the-rules thing to troll religious people by setting up rules like that for his thread. TheZizz is rocking the boat by placing video's about fringe subjects to get people like you to call him out on it and basically forego your own rules. That's why I'm not gonna bug TheZizz for posting videos on fringe science and why I am gonna tell you or FD off for calling him out on it. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Its not circlejerk and its pretty sad thats sc2mapster is far from open board....
You tell me what it is. In this thread I'm only trying to get people to follow the rules of the OP (admittedly; partly to show how ridiculous they are), in any other thread all I ever crack down on is insults. You're the one trying to tell someone else his video doesn't belong here.
PS: I am the last one here, who wants to hijack this thread.
So am I, so if any of you want to discuss this further, toss me a PM. In the meantime I'll start deleting any new posts that don't contain informative links for topics related to science. Happy linking.
Be that as it may, you don't get to tell TheZizz off for his post, nor do you get to discuss the contents at this length. FDfederation made it pretty clear that he wants this thread to be purely for linking kinds of scientific researches and not for discussing them. In that same light, he shouldn't be telling TheZizz off for his video either. Either FD has to admit he kind of missed a hit in saying he doesn't want this thread to be about discussion or you (both) need to stop telling people off for posting relevant videos, however bad your opinion of them is.
If it's a circlejerk you want you should've done this in a PM thread, not an open board. I'll lock this thread if need be.
If you want to debate, go make another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
Then why is there a poll asking me if I like science? And if the aim of the thread isn't to debate, then why is it here? You can look up any academic database for a collection of links having to do with science.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@FDFederation: Go
Funny thing is, I'm someone who partly studies science and scientists while working on being a scientist on the side. You'd say I understand.
@FDFederation: Go
Leave it to the scientist to equate linguistical sentiments to mathematics. If you sincerely didn't see the point in my last post there's little point in argueing for me. I think you should read some Hume, though.
Depending on the religion, it definitely does. I.e. 'God created everything, and God himself didn't come from anything - he was the beginning'. One can argue about the usefulness or quality of such an answer, but it's definitely 'an' answer to a philosophical question.
@FDFederation: Go
I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
So I keep hearing, but I still haven't heard an example of any one question this has happened to. It's not that I think it's impossible, it's just that I'm curious what you're referring to, as in general philosophy is about being curious and has in that way 'bred' science.
I think he actually had some theories on space and time. I might be confusing him with other French prodigies, but if I'm correct he was one of the people who tried to lay down a ground theory for physics, developping on Newtonian mechanics.
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
And where do you think curiosity comes from? Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
@Gradius12: Go
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
@FDFederation: Go
Probably, but I think my Qualitative Research Methods teacher will have more to say on that than Wikipedia.
That said, 'theory' is a very widely used term with lots of meanings. I'll agree on the 'standard truth' point, but a theory can also be synonymous for a somewhat thought-out idea. Plus, EW is simply stating his belief that the idea of a soul will become a standard truth in the future. Knowing his position in these discussions it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up blowing it out of proportion, but so far his post makes sense. I can actually agree with a lot of that; I have never seen spirituality as an 'enemy' of science or such, but rather as a foggy map on feelings and consciousness that science may one day explain. Sure, we now know that it's not Juppiter throwing bolts of lightning at us, but the basic gist of "thunder and lightning are bad shit when encountered randomly in the wild" is the thought that counts here.
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
@Gradius12: Go
It's someone's trolling account, probably Dogmai's. We've had multiple trolls, all with the same 'IsOP' suffix. He generally gets a swift ban.
Suggest you just ignore him until we make him go away.
Relevant:
No, you can
Whatever that entails is pretty damn hazy, but shouldn't be discussed here. So yes, a video on the 'science' of UFO observation works.
Yeah, that would indeed be pretty stupid. However,
That's why this whole situation is funny. FD is trying to do some kind of weird bypassing-the-rules thing to troll religious people by setting up rules like that for his thread. TheZizz is rocking the boat by placing video's about fringe subjects to get people like you to call him out on it and basically forego your own rules. That's why I'm not gonna bug TheZizz for posting videos on fringe science and why I am gonna tell you or FD off for calling him out on it. You made your bed, now lie in it.
You tell me what it is. In this thread I'm only trying to get people to follow the rules of the OP (admittedly; partly to show how ridiculous they are), in any other thread all I ever crack down on is insults. You're the one trying to tell someone else his video doesn't belong here.
So am I, so if any of you want to discuss this further, toss me a PM. In the meantime I'll start deleting any new posts that don't contain informative links for topics related to science. Happy linking.
@Hookah604: Go
Be that as it may, you don't get to tell TheZizz off for his post, nor do you get to discuss the contents at this length. FDfederation made it pretty clear that he wants this thread to be purely for linking kinds of scientific researches and not for discussing them. In that same light, he shouldn't be telling TheZizz off for his video either. Either FD has to admit he kind of missed a hit in saying he doesn't want this thread to be about discussion or you (both) need to stop telling people off for posting relevant videos, however bad your opinion of them is.
If it's a circlejerk you want you should've done this in a PM thread, not an open board. I'll lock this thread if need be.
Then why is there a poll asking me if I like science? And if the aim of the thread isn't to debate, then why is it here? You can look up any academic database for a collection of links having to do with science.