Science vs. Philosophy
leste...@worldnet.att.net
that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
undisciplined imagination?
Regards - Lester
mike
@netnews.att.net:
only the way you do it. philosophy invents the conceptual materials for
science types to think off of.
Uncle Al
>
> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
Science is empirical and mathematical. Philosophy is bullshit chasing
its own skid marks.
Science -
<http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm>
Reach beyond your grasp; heck, the apparatus is sitting idle anyway.
Philosophy -
<http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/>
buncha crap
Science -
http://www.intel.com/
What good are DIPS without the chips?
Philosophy -
<http://eve.enviroweb.org/perspectives/issues/menstru.html>
buncha crap
Science -
<http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html>
Give the universe a big hand!
Philosophy-
<http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/02142316.htm>
buncha crap
"Dissertation Abstracts/Physical Sciences"
Two library shelves hold the birth pangs of the whole of First World
technological civilization.
"Dissertation Abstracts/Liberal Arts"
1000+ lbs of crap.
What philosopher ever delivered a flush toilet or a novocaine
injection?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Harlan Messinger
Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
contemplates and reasons.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
James Hunter
leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Science merely deals with the illusion that physicists
actually know what a definition *IS*.
Philosophy only deals with the illusion that
all that many people are really interested in
in what deadbeat philosopher
>
>
> Regards - Lester
mike
news:3CFA7A82...@hate.spam.net:
probably the same "philosopher" whom you fantasize about knowing, cause you
think they're the smartest people in the world, but the guy you're really
looking for is your drug dealing making his next delivery.
novocaine in your brain, i think.
YouBozo
mathematician. Though Pythagoras's theorem, was known to the Babylonians
1000 years earlier he may have been the first to prove it.
Other Philosphers who made contributions to math and science:
Anaxagoras
Antiphon
Archytas
Aristotle
Chrysippus
Cleomedes
Democritus
Eudoxus
Heraclides of Pontus
Hippias
Hypatia
Leucippus
Plato
Porphyry
Posidonius
Proclus
Ptolemy
Pythagoras
Simplicius
Thales
Xenocrates
Zeno of Elea
Descartes Rene
Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm
Pascal Blaise
Russell, Bertrand...
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CFA7A82...@hate.spam.net...
Jeremy
intelligence.
--
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
<leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
Gregory L. Hansen
Including the philosophy of science?
Philosophers also deal in well-defined terms, and logical deductions from
stated premises. Science grew up from what was called natural philosophy,
that branch of philosophy concerned with investigations of the natural
world. Nowadays they just call it science, and philosophy is more
concerned with subjects that can't be examined empirically, like political
philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, what is science, and so on.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Scientist
"Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:EDwK8.91958$352.4109@sccrnsc02...
glenn
wrote:
There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
the roots is metaphysics.
Mike Cleven
> leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>
>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>undisciplined imagination?
>
>
> Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
> contemplates and reasons.
And illuminates. Scientific fact without meaning is a sad thing, and
dangerous too.
--
Mike Cleven
http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
Mike Cleven
> Philosophy is science minus math, empirical evidence, logic, and
> intelligence.
Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
The pretension that non-scientific thought/action is not intelligence is
called "hybris", which it helps to have studied some philosophy and
history to appreciate.
Mike Cleven
> In article <3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net>,
> <leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>undisciplined imagination?
>
>
> Including the philosophy of science?
>
> Philosophers also deal in well-defined terms, and logical deductions from
> stated premises. Science grew up from what was called natural philosophy,
> that branch of philosophy concerned with investigations of the natural
> world. Nowadays they just call it science, and philosophy is more
> concerned with subjects that can't be examined empirically, like political
> philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, what is science, and so on.
In other words, stuff that science doesn't like to listen to.
Mike Cleven
Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
mike
@Jhuapl.edu:
Sahib Hunter -- butt-pukkah -- you've been drinking Drano again -- i can
tell by the word count.
what is an "illusion", snakebait? do you really know? or are you just going
to tell us something you've heard on TV? a rolly-polly like you, so full of
non-creativity, must be at the point of bursting with things to say! i
suppose that's why you drink Drano.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>
>
glenn
<iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>glenn wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
>> as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
>> the roots is metaphysics.
>
>Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
>intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
>therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
Of course they don't. And of course the roots and the boughs are
different things. Don't you think so?
Mike Cleven
Of course; the roots draw nutrients from the ground (reality); the
boughs are the result of the material acquired. The light is the
unknown, striving to become true.
Caravan
increases our knowledge is a form of philosophy. You can call mathematicians
number crunchers; and when they discovery something new they
are doing philosopher. Similarly, the scientist can be called a glorified
data collector and when they discover something new or come up with an
ingenious theory they are doing philosophy.
<leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
James Hunter
mike wrote:
> James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in news:3CFA8217.705FDE20
> @Jhuapl.edu:
>
> >
> >
> > leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> >> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> >> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> >> undisciplined imagination?
> >
>
> Sahib Hunter -- butt-pukkah -- you've been drinking Drano again -- i can
> tell by the word count.
>
> what is an "illusion", snakebait? do you really know? or are you just going
> to tell us something you've heard on TV? a rolly-polly like you, so full of
> non-creativity, must be at the point of bursting with things to say! i
> suppose that's why you drink Drano.
illusion (n) Philosophers spewing their Goedel/Evolution crap
about intelligence. It is to laugh.
mike
is that white stuff on your lips really Draino?
Richard F Hall
> >
> > Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> > that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> > whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> [snip]
> Science is empirical and mathematical. Philosophy is bullshit chasing
> its own skid marks.
> Science -
> <http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm>
> Reach beyond your grasp; heck, the apparatus is sitting idle anyway.
pendulum and inclined plane experiments: "if one could totally remove
the resistance of the medium, all substances would fall at equal
speeds." Newton's 1687 Principia declared the Equivalence Principle:
"This quantity that I mean hereafter under the name of... mass... is
known by the weight... for it is proportional to the weight as I have
found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately made...."
Einstein's Special Relativity reconsidered mass (momentum), time, and
distance as geometry. General Relativity is a geometric model of
gravitation. Einstein's elevator Gedankenexperiment embodies the Weak
(Galilean-Newtonian) Equivalence Principle:
Gravitation, Uncle Al? Lots of theory here.. how much will turn out
to be bullshit?
>
> Philosophy -
> <http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/>
> buncha crap
The Hydra has many heads. You will not be able to choose between this
one on the one hand, on the other that. And the play of differences
between the right and the left hand that Jacques Derrida insists on in
writing about Heidegger's hand disrupts the demonstrability of the
properly human as the being of pointing or monstration: Hands, that is
already or still the organic or technical dissipation. Nonetheless,
what is pointed out or towards, what may even be handed to you (t)here
is an alpha-bête, an ABC of deconstruction and Derrida, a monstrous
beginning, written without hands, and with the help of many hands.
We already know about Heidegger and the reasoning of deconstruction..
no argument here.
>
> Science -
> http://www.intel.com/
> What good are DIPS without the chips?
Toys from intel. Philosophy offers no hard toys.. may be games.
>
> Philosophy -
> <http://eve.enviroweb.org/perspectives/issues/menstru.html>
> buncha crap
Judy Grahn's essay on menstrual culture was written almost ten years
ago, and yet such information continues to occupy the realm of
obscurity. Even the women present at this session who regularly
participate in Selene Circle [EVE's monthly gathering at the time to
explore and celebrate women's bleeding] were fascinated by Grahn's
essay, one rich in menstrual facts and lore.
Is this philosophy? Thanks for the chuckle, Al.. I depend on it from
you.
> Science -
> <http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html>
> Give the universe a big hand!
The title, introductory paragraph, ``Parity: What's Not Conserved?''
and certain other material in the exhibit presented here are taken
from, or based on, the NMAH exhibit by Paul Forman, curator for modern
physics at NMAH, Smithsonian Institution. The ``Descriptive
Explanation of the Experiment'' is largely taken from an account
published in the NBS Technical News Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 4 (April
1957).
Lots of theory ready to become bullshit here too.
> Philosophy-
> http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/02142316.htm
> buncha crap
Even more sinister and shocking are the attitudes and policies of the
Catholic Church, which for years has been in denial about the depth
and breadth of a problem it repressed so actively and vigorously that
reasonable people could term its institutional behavior irresponsible
to the point of criminality.
Did I get the right URL? This sounds more like religion. Though I
don't dismiss religion from philosophy, I think this example of human
behavior reflects more on just that rather than philosophy as a
subject.
> "Dissertation Abstracts/Physical Sciences"
> Two library shelves hold the birth pangs of the whole of First World
> technological civilization.
> "Dissertation Abstracts/Liberal Arts"
> 1000+ lbs of crap.
If it weren't for philosophy, no science would have ever had a chance.
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
OK Al, you've made a attempted argument denigrating philosophy, but I
think I could find some kooky science netsites too. Desn't the
problem really involve integrating all this newfound science into a
philosophy that is useful and reflects all the reality that empiricism
and mathematics has to offer?
Richard F Hall
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.
James Hunter
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> >Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> >that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> >whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> >undisciplined imagination?
>
> Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
> contemplates and reasons.
Science does not do that,
since it's that very explanation
that is the reason that we always
invoke the athropic principle
and jack up moron's taxes.
Tom Trotter
My current view is that science involves the production and
correlation of sensory data. Explanations of behavior that don't
involve such correlations are just philosophical. Philosophy involves
the manipulation of agile terms only. Science goes a step further and
involves the manipulation of the physical referents of those terms.
Tom
Gregory L. Hansen
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net>,
>> <leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>
>>
>> Including the philosophy of science?
>>
>> Philosophers also deal in well-defined terms, and logical deductions from
>> stated premises. Science grew up from what was called natural philosophy,
>> that branch of philosophy concerned with investigations of the natural
>> world. Nowadays they just call it science, and philosophy is more
>> concerned with subjects that can't be examined empirically, like political
>> philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, what is science, and so on.
>
>In other words, stuff that science doesn't like to listen to.
No. Stuff that can't be explored empirically, like ethics. For instance,
science can, perhaps, tell you the consequences of treating people in
various ways, but it can't tell you how you *should* treat people. Like
Mill's utilitarian ethics, that the greatest good is the one that benefits
the most people. Even if a minority is enslaved for the benefit of the
majority? That's not a scientific issue, and no measurement can resolve
it. If it can't be measured, it's not science.
Jeremy
news:fWwK8.4754$MH4.2...@weber.videotron.net...
> And you are a philosopher!
I am a physicist! (well, not yet; I'm a physics major for now)
Jeremy
news:3CFAA230...@bigfoot.com...
> Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
> offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
> of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
> going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
You could call political science an offshoot of philosophy, is it the same
thing? No. You could also call science fiction an offshoot of science, but
as any real scientist will tell you, its not even close to science.
Not only that, but you clearly demonstrated your lack of reading /
comprehending skills. By saying "logic [is] a branch of philosophy" you
support my statement that philosophy does not contain logic!
You're right about Socrates--he wasn't a scientist; not even close.
Philosophy is assuming random conjectures without proof to be true (hence
the minus math, logic and empirical evidence). In contrast, science uses
*empirical evidence* to demonstrate that something is true under
circumstances, then use *math* to model the situation, all the while using
*logic* to make sure you don't do anything stupid (and using logic because
it's a part of math). So you see, my comments are quite concise and
well-founded (apparently a bit too concise), yours are not.
> The pretension that non-scientific thought/action is not intelligence is
> called "hybris", which it helps to have studied some philosophy and
> history to appreciate.
I didn't say that non-scientific thought was "non intelligence," I said
philosophy is the absence of intelligence. I hear "philosophical" arguments
for the most incorrect, moronic, bogus things all the time. QED.
Wolf Kirchmeir
>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>undisciplined imagination?
>
>
>Regards - Lester
>
Arguing about what "philosophy" means is a prime example of what philosophy
is, and also why it's a largely useless activity, albeit a rather pleasant
one.
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can observe a lot by watching
(Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
Adam Russell
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> undisciplined imagination?
You probably know that PHD stands for doctorate in philosophy. Think about
that. There are philosophies in science and in every other walk of life.
Mike Cleven
Including the one that dismisses philosophy as a useful pasttime and/or
meaningful area of knowledge.
Jeremy
science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably
wrong.
- Richard Feynman
Patrick Reany
Uncle Al wrote:
> leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> > that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> > whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> [snip]
>
> Science is empirical and mathematical. Philosophy is bullshit chasing
> its own skid marks.
>
Was the invention of science or the tweaking
of it an act of science or not? If not, then an
act of what?
Patrick
Gregory L. Hansen
To a large extent, showmanship. People were entertained with theories of
the natural world, accompanied by striking demonstrations.
_Science for a Polite Society_, Sutton
leste...@worldnet.att.net
>Philosophy is science minus math, empirical evidence, logic, and
>intelligence.
Does it have to be?
>
>--
>Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
><leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
>> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>> undisciplined imagination?
>>
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>>
>
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
>"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:3CFAA230...@bigfoot.com...
>
>> Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
>> offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
>> of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
>> going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
>
>You could call political science an offshoot of philosophy, is it the same
>thing? No. You could also call science fiction an offshoot of science, but
>as any real scientist will tell you, its not even close to science.
>
>Not only that, but you clearly demonstrated your lack of reading /
>comprehending skills. By saying "logic [is] a branch of philosophy" you
>support my statement that philosophy does not contain logic!
>
>You're right about Socrates--he wasn't a scientist; not even close.
However, Aristotle was in the context of the logic - particularly with
reference to the analysis of syllogistic reasoning and inference.
>Philosophy is assuming random conjectures without proof to be true (hence
>the minus math, logic and empirical evidence). In contrast, science uses
>*empirical evidence* to demonstrate that something is true under
>circumstances, then use *math* to model the situation, all the while using
>*logic* to make sure you don't do anything stupid (and using logic because
>it's a part of math). So you see, my comments are quite concise and
>well-founded (apparently a bit too concise), yours are not.
>
>> The pretension that non-scientific thought/action is not intelligence is
>> called "hybris", which it helps to have studied some philosophy and
>> history to appreciate.
>
>I didn't say that non-scientific thought was "non intelligence," I said
>philosophy is the absence of intelligence. I hear "philosophical" arguments
>for the most incorrect, moronic, bogus things all the time. QED.
>
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
Someone - I believe it was Ludwig von Mises - once said that there is
no such thing as a scienctific ought.
>
>--
>"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
> -- Henry Louis Mencken
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>glenn wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
>> as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
>> the roots is metaphysics.
>
>Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
>intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
>therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
But may well be analyzable according to the analytical methods
applicable to such sciences as geometry - if we only knew where to
start.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Cleven
>http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
>http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
>
Regards - Lester
Mike Cleven
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 23:22:19 GMT, Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>glenn wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
>>>as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
>>>the roots is metaphysics.
>>
>>Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
>>intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
>>therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
>
>
> But may well be analyzable according to the analytical methods
> applicable to such sciences as geometry - if we only knew where to
> start.
Well, that's what Aquinas was on about, and Bacon, and Kant. And Hegel,
even. And Heidegger.....and Wittgenstein....and......
leste...@worldnet.att.net
Granted that this is only a metaphor and a good one, it would be
interesting to speculate on how the roots and boughs could have come
to be different things.
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
But, of course, mathematics is also science and does not deal - at
least in derivative terms - in the correlation of sensory data.
Regards - Lester
Robin Tessier
>
> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> undisciplined imagination?
>
Science is thinking all knowledge can be acquired through empirical
evidence and mathematics.
Philosophy is knowing better.
Philosophers know they are fools, scientists don't. 8~)
Robin Tessier
>
> "Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3CFAA230...@bigfoot.com...
>
> > Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
> > offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
> > of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
> > going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
>
> You could call political science an offshoot of philosophy, is it the same
> thing? No. You could also call science fiction an offshoot of science, but
> as any real scientist will tell you, its not even close to science.
>
> Not only that, but you clearly demonstrated your lack of reading /
> comprehending skills. By saying "logic [is] a branch of philosophy" you
> support my statement that philosophy does not contain logic!
>
> You're right about Socrates--he wasn't a scientist; not even close.
And Socrates was illogical?
> Philosophy is assuming random conjectures without proof to be true (hence
> the minus math, logic and empirical evidence).
Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
conjectures ignorance.
In contrast, science uses
> *empirical evidence* to demonstrate that something is true under
> circumstances, then use *math* to model the situation, all the while using
> *logic* to make sure you don't do anything stupid (and using logic because
> it's a part of math). So you see, my comments are quite concise and
> well-founded (apparently a bit too concise), yours are not.
>
> > The pretension that non-scientific thought/action is not intelligence is
> > called "hybris", which it helps to have studied some philosophy and
> > history to appreciate.
>
> I didn't say that non-scientific thought was "non intelligence," I said
> philosophy is the absence of intelligence. I hear "philosophical" arguments
> for the most incorrect, moronic, bogus things all the time. QED.
So in your opinion, science is the only truth?
James Hunter
leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
That's given though, since this Ludwig wank would obviously
be a *philosopher*, which morons still preach the
null-set,. vacuums, RANDOMNESS, and other gibber-gibber,
wank-wank stuff.
Mike Cleven
They're both part of the human mind; in this way they're NOT different
things. The boughs have simply forgotten where they came from, and the
roots have no idea what the boughs are really doing.
Mike Cleven
Well put. Scientists should look up the concept of "hybris" and
consider it in relation to their own work. Some, like Einstein and
Oppenheimer, did; others like Teller and Gerald Bull didn't.
Mike Cleven
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>>"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:3CFAA230...@bigfoot.com...
>>
>>
>>>Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
>>>offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
>>>of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
>>>going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
>>
>>You could call political science an offshoot of philosophy, is it the same
>>thing? No. You could also call science fiction an offshoot of science, but
>>as any real scientist will tell you, its not even close to science.
>>
>>Not only that, but you clearly demonstrated your lack of reading /
>>comprehending skills. By saying "logic [is] a branch of philosophy" you
>>support my statement that philosophy does not contain logic!
>>
>>You're right about Socrates--he wasn't a scientist; not even close.
>
>
> And Socrates was illogical?
>
>
>>Philosophy is assuming random conjectures without proof to be true (hence
>>the minus math, logic and empirical evidence).
>
>
> Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
> conjectures ignorance.
And shallowly deliberated experiments; shallow because the consequences
of the conclusions are not considered. "Because you can split an atom -
should you?"
glenn
wrote:
Hard question, nobody can answer I think.
glenn
<iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In this way you abolish the objective reality of science.
>in this way they're NOT different
>things. The boughs have simply forgotten where they came from, and the
>roots have no idea what the boughs are really doing.
In this way you abolish the whole tree.
Ergo: You don't accept the metaphor at all.
James Hunter
Mike Cleven wrote:
> Robin Tessier wrote:
> > leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Science is thinking all knowledge can be acquired through empirical
> > evidence and mathematics.
> >
> > Philosophy is knowing better.
> >
> > Philosophers know they are fools, scientists don't. 8~)
>
> Well put. Scientists should look up the concept of "hybris" and
> consider it in relation to their own work. Some, like Einstein and
> Oppenheimer, did; others like Teller and Gerald Bull didn't.
Einstone didn't consider it until *after* he "discovered"
relativity, so weirdos don't count. And the symmetry
of things worshipers still need to be reminded
quasi-periodically that they are MORONS.
Ron Peterson
> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> undisciplined imagination?
I think that we need to try to get consistent definitions of science,
mathematics, and philosophy. And those definitions should be useful in
determining what category a statement (or group of statements) is in.
(Since a group of statements can be combined into a compound statement,
I will use "statement" to refer to a group of statements.
A statement is consistent if there is some interpretation under which it
is true.
A consistent statement is verifiable if it is a tautology or can be
shown to be false through experiments.
A consistent statement is a philosophical statement if it is a tautology
or not verifiable.
A consistent statement is a scientific statement if it is verifiable but
not a tautology.
Ron
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 02:35:26 +0000 (UTC),
>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>In other words, stuff that science doesn't like to listen to.
>> >
>> >No. Stuff that can't be explored empirically, like ethics. For instance,
>> >science can, perhaps, tell you the consequences of treating people in
>> >various ways, but it can't tell you how you *should* treat people. Like
>> >Mill's utilitarian ethics, that the greatest good is the one that benefits
>> >the most people. Even if a minority is enslaved for the benefit of the
>> >majority? That's not a scientific issue, and no measurement can resolve
>> >it. If it can't be measured, it's not science.
>>
>> Someone - I believe it was Ludwig von Mises - once said that there is
>> no such thing as a scienctific ought.
>
> That's given though, since this Ludwig wank would obviously
> be a *philosopher*, which morons still preach the
> null-set,. vacuums, RANDOMNESS, and other gibber-gibber,
> wank-wank stuff.
So, you suggest that there is such a thing as a scientific ought? I
believe you'll find that science confines itself to describing what is
and not what ought to be.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >--
>> >"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
>> > -- Henry Louis Mencken
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 23:22:19 GMT, Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
>>>>as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
>>>>the roots is metaphysics.
>>>
>>>Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
>>>intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
>>>therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
>>
>>
>> But may well be analyzable according to the analytical methods
>> applicable to such sciences as geometry - if we only knew where to
>> start.
>
>Well, that's what Aquinas was on about, and Bacon, and Kant. And Hegel,
>even. And Heidegger.....and Wittgenstein....and......
Sure, that's part of the whole problem. They understood that the
problem was there but not where to start to make sense of the problem
in relation to its solution.
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Cleven
>http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
>http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
Scientists may suspect that philosophers are fools, but do
philosophers know that scientists are fools? If so, how?
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
>In sci.philosophy.meta leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>> undisciplined imagination?
>
>I think that we need to try to get consistent definitions of science,
>mathematics, and philosophy. And those definitions should be useful in
>determining what category a statement (or group of statements) is in.
>(Since a group of statements can be combined into a compound statement,
>I will use "statement" to refer to a group of statements.
Good idea. Certainly, your aim is in the right direction.
>
>A statement is consistent if there is some interpretation under which it
>is true.
>
>A consistent statement is verifiable if it is a tautology or can be
>shown to be false through experiments.
???
>
>A consistent statement is a philosophical statement if it is a tautology
>or not verifiable.
I don't see how a tautological statement can be described as
philosophical or much of anything.
>
>A consistent statement is a scientific statement if it is verifiable but
>not a tautology.
True and well put.
>
> Ron
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
You know, I've noticed this usage in some other postings as well. A
person may be an idiot or simply wrong. But that does not give idiots
the right to indulge in any sort of character assassination by
mistating his name. I happen to think Einstein was incorrect. But I
would not presume to insult his legacy by taking silly cheap shots. If
I have specific reasons to believe his rationale was in error, it is
easy enough to state them and to allow others to examine the differing
doctrines. If your foremost concern is his nomenclature, then I
suspect you have no scientific doctrine to be examined at all.
>
>
>
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<adamr...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>
><leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
>> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>> undisciplined imagination?
>
>You probably know that PHD stands for doctorate in philosophy. Think about
>that. There are philosophies in science and in every other walk of life.
I am certainly well aware of what you point out and would not suggest
otherwise. One of the great aspirations of my early life was to see
reality and the world in just such terms. However, my primary quarrel
lies more with philosophers than philosophy. What is it they used to
say about economists? If you laid them all end to end, they still
wouldn't reach a conclusion. The same is true of psychologists and
philosophers. It only takes a brief reading of philosophy wannabe's on
the web to realize that they have no conception of where they are much
less where they want to be - in any sort of rigorous conceptual terms.
Apparently all you need to qualify as a legitimate philosophy aspirant
is some sort of benign desire to rationalize life in unassumingly
vague terms. If the letters PHD are to mean anything in significant
academic terms, then it is about time that the basic concepts subsumed
by the term exhibit some rigor other than mortis.
>
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>undisciplined imagination?
>>
>>
>>Regards - Lester
>>
>
>Arguing about what "philosophy" means is a prime example of what philosophy
>is, and also why it's a largely useless activity, albeit a rather pleasant
>one.
Sure, but I would rather see it as a somewhat rigorous originative
process than the repository it has become for also-ran intellects who
couldn't make it anywhere else. But thanks for the input.
>
>
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Wolf Kirchmeir
>Blind River, Ontario
>
>..................................................................
>You can observe a lot by watching
>(Yogi Berra, Phil. Em.)
>..................................................................
>
>
Regards - Lester
Mike Cleven
The pretense that reality can be objective is one of the fallacies of
science; it's epistemology that reminds us that reality is subjective
since it's based on our means of knowing. That means of knowing
includes science. That science has had success in manipulating the
natural world through technology and incidental is only fortuitous; the
point remains that the means of perception are still subjectively
derived, no matter how objective the pretense.
>
>
>>in this way they're NOT different
>>things. The boughs have simply forgotten where they came from, and the
>>roots have no idea what the boughs are really doing.
>
>
> In this way you abolish the whole tree.
>
> Ergo: You don't accept the metaphor at all.
No. It's science that doesn't like metaphors, not philosophy.
Mike Cleven
Gee. I thought science presumed to have an answer for everything.
leste...@worldnet.att.net
Very well put and quite correct. However, my objective in posing the
question was not to denigrate the metaphor but to illustrate how easy
it is to fall into facile comparisons that overlook real problems. I
think the metaphor is about as good as we could hope for. But we
really do need to understand how all of these things originate in some
form of metaphysical root and yet become different things. There must
be some formative principle in operation here that causes - or at
least allows - the compounding of different forms in terms of one
another that results in the morphing of various branches of knowledge.
Of course, I hope it is unnecessary to state that my use of a term
such as metaphysics does not carry any sort of mystical implications.
It is intended solely to indicate some unstated but rigorous category
of knowledge whose study can illuminate the various categories of
knowledge and their evolution.
Regards - Lester
Mike Cleven
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 00:12:20 -0400 (EDT), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
> <wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>>
>>
>>Arguing about what "philosophy" means is a prime example of what philosophy
>>is, and also why it's a largely useless activity, albeit a rather pleasant
>>one.
>
>
> Sure, but I would rather see it as a somewhat rigorous originative
> process than the repository it has become for also-ran intellects who
> couldn't make it anywhere else. But thanks for the input.
It's hard to think of Nietzsche or Heidegger as also-ran intellects.
Thoreau. Norman Brown. Shaw. Also-ran intellects?
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>glenn wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a nice image fitting to your question. Imagine knowledge
>> as a tree. The bole is philosophy. The boughs are the sciences and
>> the roots is metaphysics.
>
>Metaphysics in particular requires a disciplined imagination; but also
>intuition and inspiration, which of course are not quantifiable and
>therefore not analyzable according to scientific method.
I am not aware of any branch of science or knowledge which does not
require intuition and inspiration.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Cleven
>http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
>http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
>
Regards - Lester
Mike Cleven
By example. For one, their cupidity in being willing to strike deals
with the military-industrial complex for the most nefarious purposes,
turning a blind eye to the consequences; Teller's not the only one who
actually _brags_ about this sell-out as a good thing. For another,
their mercenary behaviour in doing research that's meant to endorse
different political and policing agendas, such as anti-marijuana
research/propaganda or those who claim that global warming is a myth.
Jeremy
> And shallowly deliberated experiments; shallow because the consequences
> of the conclusions are not considered. "Because you can split an atom -
> should you?"
Such is why philosophy is crap. You do because you can and because you
learn.
This is another random meaningless philosophical conjecture--"what if"-type
questions are meaningless. "What if" pi was not transcendental? Then maybe
monkeys would fly out of my ass. The question is far too complex and there
are far too many unknown relations to give a meaningful answer to this
question. What if I could go as fast as light is the equivalent of asking
what if I could divide a real number by zero and get another real number?
Then monkeys might fly out of my ass.
Robin Tessier
Let me rephrase that.
Most philosophers believe all people are fools, including themselves.
Most scientists believe all people are fools, excluding themselves.
A wise man once said: "A fool who knows he's a fool is less of a fool
than a fool who doesn't know he's a fool." 8~)
Jeremy
news:3CFB89E6...@cid.alcatel.com...
> Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
> conjectures ignorance.
Taken a high school physics class recently? Last time I checked, we modeled
reality by demonstrating that random conjecutres are true.
> So in your opinion, science is the only truth?
It's not an opinion, it's reality. I can say with absolute confidence that
if, under reasonable conditions, you drop something from a small height of h
meters, it will hit the ground at almost exactly sqrt(2gh) meters per
second, diverging above the larger the height is. Not even the most
confounded or convincing argument (philosophical or otherwise) can prove
that wrong. I can, in fact, use math and physics to prove that.
Conversely, I can use philosophical logic to prove men have more teeth then
women (notice, that there need be no observational evidence nor any
mathematical models to "prove" this statement, just pure philosophical
logic).
Jeremy
news:3cfb8243...@netnews.att.net...
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 22:04:20 GMT, "Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Philosophy is science minus math, empirical evidence, logic, and
> >intelligence.
>
> Does it have to be?
If it's not, it's not philosophy!
Keep learning physics
news:fZPK8.159345$L76.244012@rwcrnsc53...
What if I could go as fast as light is the equivalent of asking
> what if I could divide a real number by zero and get another real number?
> Then monkeys might fly out of my ass.
That's exactly what Einstein asked - something only a
philosopher would be opened mind' enough to ask -
before he came up with he's theory of relativity.
If I were you I'd quickly get your B.S.C. in Physics and get a job
collecting sensory data for the scientifically minded philosopher. We need
science grunts like you to do the dirty work.
glenn
wrote:
>In sci.philosophy.meta leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
You are using words like "interpretation", "true", "tautology",
"verifiable". These words presuppose an axiomatic approach to both
science and mathematics. The second is impossible as Godel showed
(Hilbert's program). The first is an open problem listed in
Hilbert famous list.
My point is that, epistemology, philosophy, mathematics (as a
whole) and science (as a whole) was, is, and will be a vague
subject, never subjected to strict axiomatization but only to a
dialectical quest, which is in fact what exactly we are doing
right now.
Jeremy
news:qeQK8.15303$MH4.6...@weber.videotron.net...
> That's exactly what Einstein asked - something only a
> philosopher would be opened mind' enough to ask -
> before he came up with he's theory of relativity.
> If I were you I'd quickly get your B.S.C. in Physics and get a job
> collecting sensory data for the scientifically minded philosopher. We need
> science grunts like you to do the dirty work.
Have you studied physics, or have you just read the popular biography on
Einstein? Evidence strongly suggests the latter.
I never meant asking the question was stupid, I clearly meant that forcing
an answer upon it *is*. Besides, nowhere in the foundations of relativity
is written "let us imagine we are traveling at the speed of light...," no,
it is written that the question is meaningless. Such questions were what
got him interested in it. You are also moronically mixing past-sight,
hind-sight, and present-sight. Now, it is meaningless to try to find an
answer to a question for which an answer does not exist, then it was not
known that the answer did not exist, thus, the endeavor to find the answer
was meaningful (note, that the answer involved *math* and *logic*, yet no
philosophy). Philosophy attempts to either find meaningless answers to
questions, or to find answers to meaningless questions. Yet the
meaninglessness is known.
Robin Tessier
>
> "Robin Tessier" <rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:3CFB89E6...@cid.alcatel.com...
>
> > Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
> > conjectures ignorance.
> Taken a high school physics class recently? Last time I checked, we modeled
> reality by demonstrating that random conjecutres are true.
You don't model reality, you model your perception of reality.
What random conjectures are you refering to?
>
> > So in your opinion, science is the only truth?
> It's not an opinion, it's reality. I can say with absolute confidence that
> if, under reasonable conditions, you drop something from a small height of h
> meters, it will hit the ground at almost exactly sqrt(2gh) meters per
> second, diverging above the larger the height is.
Good for you.
I notice your use of the following: "under reasonable conditions",
"small height", "almost exactly", "diverging above the larger the height
is". Is this what absolute confidence means to scientists these days?
At least, philosophers know there can be no absolute confidence...
Not even the most
> confounded or convincing argument (philosophical or otherwise) can prove
> that wrong. I can, in fact, use math and physics to prove that.
> Conversely, I can use philosophical logic to prove men have more teeth then
> women (notice, that there need be no observational evidence nor any
> mathematical models to "prove" this statement, just pure philosophical
> logic).
Please enlighten me with both proofs.
Robin Tessier
>
> "Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3CFB8CEF...@bigfoot.com...
> > And shallowly deliberated experiments; shallow because the consequences
> > of the conclusions are not considered. "Because you can split an atom -
> > should you?"
>
> Such is why philosophy is crap. You do because you can and because you
> learn.
Nazi doctors in concentration camps did because they could and because
they learned. Under your argument, this would be justifiable in the name
of science?
Such is why science without philosophy is downright dangerous.
>
> This is another random meaningless philosophical conjecture--"what if"-type
> questions are meaningless. "What if" pi was not transcendental? Then maybe
> monkeys would fly out of my ass. The question is far too complex and there
> are far too many unknown relations to give a meaningful answer to this
> question. What if I could go as fast as light is the equivalent of asking
> what if I could divide a real number by zero and get another real number?
> Then monkeys might fly out of my ass.
You seem to be confusing philosophy with science fiction...
Jeremy
> > > conjectures ignorance.
> > Taken a high school physics class recently? Last time I checked, we
modeled
> > reality by demonstrating that random conjecutres are true.
>
> You don't model reality, you model your perception of reality.
>
> What random conjectures are you refering to?
Wow. Read above, read below. That's what. Perception is BS. What happens
happens. It doesn't matter if I think aliens put a probe in my ass, it was
still a dream.
> I notice your use of the following: "under reasonable conditions",
> "small height", "almost exactly", "diverging above the larger the height
> is". Is this what absolute confidence means to scientists these days?
>
> At least, philosophers know there can be no absolute confidence...
*cyber vomit*
No, philosophers grossly over generalize things that were false to begin
with, and if it's proven wrong, they claim it's because it's a matter of
perception or because you can't be absolutely confident. Complete BS. I
added those restrictions because that's the only region that the model is
valid in! If you want to know how fast it will fall on a planet covered
with 100 km of water, a radius of 1000 km which is spinning at 16,000 RPM
while in a very close orbit around a super-massive black hole, then you have
to use an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of equations!!! What you mistake for lack
of confidence is excess of precision.
> Not even the most
> > confounded or convincing argument (philosophical or otherwise) can prove
> > that wrong. I can, in fact, use math and physics to prove that.
> > Conversely, I can use philosophical logic to prove men have more teeth
then
> > women (notice, that there need be no observational evidence nor any
> > mathematical models to "prove" this statement, just pure philosophical
> > logic).
>
> Please enlighten me with both proofs.
I'm not going to take you through high school classes, if you want to argue,
I expect you to be enlightened in the subject; or at LEAST know how to use a
search engine!
Jeremy
> they learned. Under your argument, this would be justifiable in the name
> of science?
I didn't say not to use MORALS, did I? We split the atom because we can, we
killed people with it to prevent further loss of life (nuclear weapons also
prevented a conflict with the former USSR. Take history 101).
> > This is another random meaningless philosophical conjecture--"what
if"-type
> > questions are meaningless. "What if" pi was not transcendental? Then
maybe
> > monkeys would fly out of my ass. The question is far too complex and
there
> > are far too many unknown relations to give a meaningful answer to this
> > question. What if I could go as fast as light is the equivalent of
asking
> > what if I could divide a real number by zero and get another real
number?
> > Then monkeys might fly out of my ass.
>
> You seem to be confusing philosophy with science fiction...
Last time I checked, philosophy was still asking questions with meaningless
answers, or looking for answers to meaningless questions. The examples are
as equivalent to that as the well-ordering property is equivalent to the
principal of finite induction!
Robin Tessier
>
> > > > Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
> > > > conjectures ignorance.
> > > Taken a high school physics class recently? Last time I checked, we
> modeled
> > > reality by demonstrating that random conjecutres are true.
> >
> > You don't model reality, you model your perception of reality.
> >
> > What random conjectures are you refering to?
>
> Wow. Read above, read below. That's what. Perception is BS. What happens
> happens. It doesn't matter if I think aliens put a probe in my ass, it was
> still a dream.
I wouldn't be so sure...
>
> > I notice your use of the following: "under reasonable conditions",
> > "small height", "almost exactly", "diverging above the larger the height
> > is". Is this what absolute confidence means to scientists these days?
> >
> > At least, philosophers know there can be no absolute confidence...
>
> *cyber vomit*
> No, philosophers grossly over generalize things that were false to begin
> with, and if it's proven wrong, they claim it's because it's a matter of
> perception or because you can't be absolutely confident. Complete BS. I
> added those restrictions because that's the only region that the model is
> valid in!
And yet you still believe science is truth...
If you want to know how fast it will fall on a planet covered
> with 100 km of water, a radius of 1000 km which is spinning at 16,000 RPM
> while in a very close orbit around a super-massive black hole, then you have
> to use an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of equations!!! What you mistake for lack
> of confidence is excess of precision.
Whatever you want to call it, it is still an approximation. In any case,
science still fails to define the truth.
>
> > Not even the most
> > > confounded or convincing argument (philosophical or otherwise) can prove
> > > that wrong. I can, in fact, use math and physics to prove that.
> > > Conversely, I can use philosophical logic to prove men have more teeth
> then
> > > women (notice, that there need be no observational evidence nor any
> > > mathematical models to "prove" this statement, just pure philosophical
> > > logic).
> >
> > Please enlighten me with both proofs.
>
> I'm not going to take you through high school classes, if you want to argue,
> I expect you to be enlightened in the subject; or at LEAST know how to use a
> search engine!
I just don't believe you can prove either...
James Hunter
leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:18:14 -0400, James Hunter
> <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's given though, since this Ludwig wank would obviously
> > be a *philosopher*, which morons still preach the
> > null-set,. vacuums, RANDOMNESS, and other gibber-gibber,
> > wank-wank stuff.
>
> So, you suggest that there is such a thing as a scientific ought? I
> believe you'll find that science confines itself to describing what is
> and not what ought to be.
It really doesn't make a shit difference what "science" confines
itself to, since it's philosophers of "science" who
do the sciencing dorko.
Keep learning physics
in a lake of a mind...but you can lead a horse to water...I shouldn't even
bother trying to convince the worthwhileness of philosophy to you, either
have it in you or you don't...some people just don't see, does that mean
that that which they do not see(intellectually "see" that is) is
meaningless... If things in reality were so clear cut and dry we would be
living in your little narrow minded view of reality...which really is kind
of sad...If I was in that position - and I actually was aware that I had a
very limited view of reality and there was nothing I could do to enlighten
my understanding of reality - I'd quickly run and find a bridge with a
height of around 300feet from the ground and perform Galileo's famous
experiment for real by jumping off the bridge with a stopwatch in my hand.
Anyway, you can always be of use to society by devoting the rest of your
life discovering what physical reality is, but you'll never achieve a
complete theory which accounts for you the observer. You'll only only have a
theoretical system of physical reality whose sole purpose is pragmatic in
that it helps the human species better survive in the physical world. You
won't have a meaningful explanation of what your all about or what reality
(And when I mean reality I not only refer to "The universe" after the big
bang , I'm refering to everything(I hope that word doesn't scare a physicist
like you) ; so that would also involve the stuff before the big bang and
the stuff (I'll let you define the word "stuff", your the physicist after
all)after the big bang and the "stuff" in-between your two ears) is all
about. However, after all that hard work you'll still be a moron, and you'll
always be a moron no matter how much physics you shove up your big fat ass.
"Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:WNQK8.52062$0A2.41046@rwcrnsc54...
Jeremy
> > Wow. Read above, read below. That's what. Perception is BS. What
happens
> > happens. It doesn't matter if I think aliens put a probe in my ass, it
was
> > still a dream.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure...
Stop being a goddamned phylosopher for a second and prove your remark,
instead of spewing random unproved conjectures!
> And yet you still believe science is truth...
and it is...
> Whatever you want to call it, it is still an approximation. In any case,
> science still fails to define the truth.
No. If you know all of the varyables, it's not. But generally we don't
feel an overwhelming need to know g to sisteen thousand decimal places, not
to mention it's far easier to use approximations. Try solving cos(x)=x
without one!
> I just don't believe you can prove either...
Go up to your high school teacher, which is clearly the grade you are in,
and tell them that. They'll laugh too.
If you know high school physics, you should know the former, if you know
high school philosophy, you should know the latter. If you don't, you are
too ignorant of the subject to participate in this conversation.
Robin Tessier
>
> > Nazi doctors in concentration camps did because they could and because
> > they learned. Under your argument, this would be justifiable in the name
> > of science?
>
> I didn't say not to use MORALS, did I? We split the atom because we can, we
> killed people with it to prevent further loss of life
Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to prevent loss of
military personnel is immoral, even Eisenhower admitted it after the
war.
(nuclear weapons also
> prevented a conflict with the former USSR.
Ah, yes. Good ole' MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). There's a shining
beacon of morals if I ever saw one...
> Take history 101).
Take a pill.
>
> > > This is another random meaningless philosophical conjecture--"what
> if"-type
> > > questions are meaningless. "What if" pi was not transcendental? Then
> maybe
> > > monkeys would fly out of my ass. The question is far too complex and
> there
> > > are far too many unknown relations to give a meaningful answer to this
> > > question. What if I could go as fast as light is the equivalent of
> asking
> > > what if I could divide a real number by zero and get another real
> number?
> > > Then monkeys might fly out of my ass.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing philosophy with science fiction...
>
> Last time I checked, philosophy was still asking questions with meaningless
> answers, or looking for answers to meaningless questions.
Why do you bother with these questions then? Or maybe I should ask: why
do these questions bother you?
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
> That science has had success in manipulating the
>natural world through technology and incidental is only fortuitous;
!!! You can actually say that with a straight face?
[...]
Note follow-ups.
Brian
Jeremy
> Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to prevent loss of
> military personnel is immoral, even Eisenhower admitted it after the
> war.
I'm serious when I tell you to take a history class. We killed *FAR* more
people single firebomb raids near the end of the war then with both nukes
combined. Nukes were physiological. But if you knew anything about
history, you'd know that.
> Ah, yes. Good ole' MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). There's a shining
> beacon of morals if I ever saw one...
Because you would have prefered open war with the USSR, with millions more
dead?
> Why do you bother with these questions then? Or maybe I should ask: why
> do these questions bother you?
Last time I checked, I wasn't asking nor answering questions. I was making
a point.
Robin Tessier
>
> "Robin Tessier" <rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote in message
> news:3CFBDFD7...@cid.alcatel.com...
>
> > > Wow. Read above, read below. That's what. Perception is BS. What
> happens
> > > happens. It doesn't matter if I think aliens put a probe in my ass, it
> was
> > > still a dream.
> >
> > I wouldn't be so sure...
>
> Stop being a goddamned phylosopher for a second and prove your remark,
> instead of spewing random unproved conjectures!
Stop being a scientist for a second and get a sense of humour.
>
> > And yet you still believe science is truth...
> and it is...
As a scientist, you're able to prove that. Arent' you?
>
> > Whatever you want to call it, it is still an approximation. In any case,
> > science still fails to define the truth.
> No. If you know all of the varyables, it's not. But generally we don't
> feel an overwhelming need to know g to sisteen thousand decimal places, not
> to mention it's far easier to use approximations. Try solving cos(x)=x
> without one!
Exactly. Not the truth, just convenient approximations...
>
> > I just don't believe you can prove either...
> Go up to your high school teacher, which is clearly the grade you are in,
> and tell them that. They'll laugh too.
> If you know high school physics, you should know the former, if you know
> high school philosophy, you should know the latter. If you don't, you are
> too ignorant of the subject to participate in this conversation.
The fact that you've still failed to prove either makes me believe
you're just a troll posing as a scientist.
Tom Trotter
> On 2 Jun 2002 19:20:10 -0700, tom...@juno.com (Tom Trotter) wrote:
>
> >leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message news:<3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net>...
> >> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> >> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> >> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> >> undisciplined imagination?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >My current view is that science involves the production and
> >correlation of sensory data. Explanations of behavior that don't
> >involve such correlations are just philosophical. Philosophy involves
> >the manipulation of agile terms only. Science goes a step further and
> >involves the manipulation of the physical referents of those terms.
> >
> >Tom
>
> But, of course, mathematics is also science and does not deal - at
> least in derivative terms - in the correlation of sensory data.
>
>
>
> Regards - Lester
I would say that the math is the philosophical part of science. This
is less apparent than when ordinary language interpretations of the
math or the data are considered. The science part of science is the
reliance on sensory data to generate and evaluate statements,
mathematical or whatever.
Tom
Peter T. Daniels
> Gee. I thought science presumed to have an answer for everything.
Haven't read much science either, have you.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
leste...@worldnet.att.net
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <3CFAA251...@bigfoot.com>,
>Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>> In article <3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net>,
>>> <leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>
>>>
>>> Including the philosophy of science?
>>>
>>> Philosophers also deal in well-defined terms, and logical deductions from
>>> stated premises. Science grew up from what was called natural philosophy,
>>> that branch of philosophy concerned with investigations of the natural
>>> world. Nowadays they just call it science, and philosophy is more
>>> concerned with subjects that can't be examined empirically, like political
>>> philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, what is science, and so on.
>>
>>In other words, stuff that science doesn't like to listen to.
>
>No. Stuff that can't be explored empirically, like ethics. For instance,
>science can, perhaps, tell you the consequences of treating people in
>various ways, but it can't tell you how you *should* treat people. Like
>Mill's utilitarian ethics, that the greatest good is the one that benefits
>the most people. Even if a minority is enslaved for the benefit of the
>majority? That's not a scientific issue, and no measurement can resolve
>it. If it can't be measured, it's not science.
>
>--
>"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
> -- Henry Louis Mencken
Actually there are many solutions which are wrong. It is interesting
how many well educated people take the idea of science to be synomous
with empiricism. Many sciences are analytical in nature - such as
geometry. Life in general is not an experimental science, and ethics
can have an analytically sufficient foundation whether or not it does.
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net>,
> <leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>undisciplined imagination?
>
>Including the philosophy of science?
Well taken. If indeed there is a philosophy of science, then this
would indicate that philosophy cannot be the vast intellectual morass
that many would believe. And it would also indicate that philosophy
can be much more effective as an intellectual tool than it has proven
so far to be.
>
>Philosophers also deal in well-defined terms, and logical deductions from
>stated premises. Science grew up from what was called natural philosophy,
>that branch of philosophy concerned with investigations of the natural
>world. Nowadays they just call it science, and philosophy is more
>concerned with subjects that can't be examined empirically, like political
>philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, what is science, and so on.
>
>
>--
>"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
> -- Henry Louis Mencken
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
>Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
>science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably
>wrong.
>- Richard Feynman
Acknowledging the general validity of such an observation with respect
to philosophers does not obscure the fact that it applies almost as
well to scientists themselves.
>
>--
>Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
>
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote:
>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CFAA230...@bigfoot.com...
>>
>> > Funny thing, since scientific method ("empirical evidence") is an
>> > offshoot of philosophical considerations of logic; logic being a branch
>> > of philosophy, pure and simple, right from the start. Unless you're
>> > going to tell me that Socrates was a scientist.
>>
>> You could call political science an offshoot of philosophy, is it the same
>> thing? No. You could also call science fiction an offshoot of science, but
>> as any real scientist will tell you, its not even close to science.
>>
>> Not only that, but you clearly demonstrated your lack of reading /
>> comprehending skills. By saying "logic [is] a branch of philosophy" you
>> support my statement that philosophy does not contain logic!
>>
>> You're right about Socrates--he wasn't a scientist; not even close.
>
>And Socrates was illogical?
>
>> Philosophy is assuming random conjectures without proof to be true (hence
>> the minus math, logic and empirical evidence).
>
>Scientists try to model random conjectures. Philosophers call random
>conjectures ignorance.
>
> In contrast, science uses
>> *empirical evidence* to demonstrate that something is true under
>> circumstances, then use *math* to model the situation, all the while using
>> *logic* to make sure you don't do anything stupid (and using logic because
>> it's a part of math). So you see, my comments are quite concise and
>> well-founded (apparently a bit too concise), yours are not.
>>
>> > The pretension that non-scientific thought/action is not intelligence is
>> > called "hybris", which it helps to have studied some philosophy and
>> > history to appreciate.
>>
>> I didn't say that non-scientific thought was "non intelligence," I said
>> philosophy is the absence of intelligence. I hear "philosophical" arguments
>> for the most incorrect, moronic, bogus things all the time. QED.
>
>So in your opinion, science is the only truth?
Anything which is true is true of one thing in relation to others.
Thus anything true is perforce scientific whether analytical or
empriical in nature.
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>
>>
>> Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
>> contemplates and reasons.
>
>And illuminates. Scientific fact without meaning is a sad thing, and
>dangerous too.
Too sad and too true. Unfortunately, philosophers have done all too
little to clarify the meaning of the data.
>
>
>--
>Mike Cleven
>http://www.cayoosh.net (Bridge River Lillooet history)
>http://www.hiyu.net (Chinook Jargon phrasebook/history)
>
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>undisciplined imagination?
>
>Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
>contemplates and reasons.
Any reason philosophy shouldn't contemplate and reason about what
science explores and studies?
>
>--
>Harlan Messinger
>Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
>Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Regards - Lester
Jeremy
> Stop being a scientist for a second and get a sense of humour.
My sense of humor is far beyond you.
> > > And yet you still believe science is truth...
> > and it is...
>
> As a scientist, you're able to prove that. Arent' you?
That's the whole point of it...
> > > Whatever you want to call it, it is still an approximation. In any
case,
> > > science still fails to define the truth.
> > No. If you know all of the varyables, it's not. But generally we don't
> > feel an overwhelming need to know g to sisteen thousand decimal places,
not
> > to mention it's far easier to use approximations. Try solving cos(x)=x
> > without one!
>
> Exactly. Not the truth, just convenient approximations...
Go back and read it again, we could just as well do it exactly, but it would
take too much time, and give us nearly immesurably small differences.
> The fact that you've still failed to prove either makes me believe
> you're just a troll posing as a scientist.
You disgust me. Use energy to prove the former, and get a philosophy book
to prove the latter.
Jeremy
news:3cfc1477...@netnews.att.net...
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:32:40 GMT, "Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for
> >science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and
probably
> >wrong.
> >- Richard Feynman
>
> Acknowledging the general validity of such an observation with respect
> to philosophers does not obscure the fact that it applies almost as
> well to scientists themselves.
Scientists admit it when they are wrong, and modify their ideas.
Philosophers don't. They don't do anything productive either; computers
exist because of quantum physics, not because of someone pondering the
notion of self.
Harlan Messinger
>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 16:36:13 -0400, Harlan Messinger
><h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>
>>Science explores, studies, and experiments, and philosophy
>>contemplates and reasons.
>
>Any reason philosophy shouldn't contemplate and reason about what
>science explores and studies?
None whatsoever. Did I imply that it shouldn't?
Chumakin
Sorry, I could not quite understand your question. Will it be fair enough to
rephrase it in this way:
Could it be that the only difference beween Clinton and Bush is that Clinton
smiles nicer and has a smart wife whereas Bush (Jr) only grins and we don't
see his wife on TV so often?
Warmest regards,
Michael
<leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> undisciplined imagination?
>
>
> Regards - Lester
>
>
Jeremy
news:3cfc147a...@netnews.att.net...
> Anything which is true is true of one thing in relation to others.
> Thus anything true is perforce scientific whether analytical or
> empriical in nature.
I don't follow...
Etherman
<leste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3cfa64e2...@netnews.att.net...
> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy
is
> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
> undisciplined imagination?
No. Science is a branch of philosophy also called Natural Philosophy.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:07:46 -0400, Robin Tessier
>> <rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Science is thinking all knowledge can be acquired through empirical
>>>evidence and mathematics.
>>>
>>>Philosophy is knowing better.
>>>
>>>Philosophers know they are fools, scientists don't. 8~)
>>
>>
>> Scientists may suspect that philosophers are fools, but do
>> philosophers know that scientists are fools? If so, how?
>
>By example. For one, their cupidity in being willing to strike deals
>with the military-industrial complex for the most nefarious purposes,
>turning a blind eye to the consequences; Teller's not the only one who
>actually _brags_ about this sell-out as a good thing. For another,
>their mercenary behaviour in doing research that's meant to endorse
>different political and policing agendas, such as anti-marijuana
>research/propaganda or those who claim that global warming is a myth.
Of course, I was referring to scientists in general and not particular
individuals. Even so, you're referencing political objectives of
questionable universal validty and not matters of science in general.
leste...@worldnet.att.net
<rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote:
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:07:46 -0400, Robin Tessier
>> <rtes...@cid.alcatel.com> wrote:
>>
>> >leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>> >> that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>> >> whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>> >> undisciplined imagination?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Science is thinking all knowledge can be acquired through empirical
>> >evidence and mathematics.
>> >
>> >Philosophy is knowing better.
>> >
>> >Philosophers know they are fools, scientists don't. 8~)
>>
>> Scientists may suspect that philosophers are fools, but do
>> philosophers know that scientists are fools? If so, how?
>>
>
>Let me rephrase that.
>
>Most philosophers believe all people are fools, including themselves.
>Most scientists believe all people are fools, excluding themselves.
>
>A wise man once said: "A fool who knows he's a fool is less of a fool
>than a fool who doesn't know he's a fool." 8~)
I can certainly understand the point, but I know of no fool who
actually believes that he is a fool. Usually it is the non fool who
has no respect for what he is doing who regards himself and others as
fools. And this, I strongly suspect, typifies all too many
philosophers, psychologists, etc.
The typical natural scientist, on the other hand, has respect for the
intellectual integrity and value of what he does but not necessarily
what others do. Which is a shame because most fields of intellectual
endeavor have worthy objectives in some respect, and it is usually the
philosophers who have failed to identify these objectives correctly.
Regards - Lester
leste...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 00:12:20 -0400 (EDT), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
>> <wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:35:06 GMT, leste...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could it be that the only difference between science and philosophy is
>>>>that science deals in well defined terms and disciplined imagination
>>>>whereas philosophy speculates in terms of poorly defined terms and
>>>>undisciplined imagination?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards - Lester
>>>>
>>>
>>>Arguing about what "philosophy" means is a prime example of what philosophy
>>>is, and also why it's a largely useless activity, albeit a rather pleasant
>>>one.
>>
>>
>> Sure, but I would rather see it as a somewhat rigorous originative
>> process than the repository it has become for also-ran intellects who
>> couldn't make it anywhere else. But thanks for the input.
>
>It's hard to think of Nietzsche or Heidegger as also-ran intellects.
>Thoreau. Norman Brown. Shaw. Also-ran intellects?
Well, certainly, there have been any number of first rate intellects
throughout history who have been philosophers. However, in modern
academia, I strongly suspect that the percentage of also-ran
intellects in the philosophical disciplines is much greater than in
the natural sciences, mathematics, and computer sciences.
However, this would, of course, be subject to revision. I can only
speak in terms of what I am able to read on the web. To be perfectly
frank, much of everything - scientific as well as philosophical -
seems pretty bizarre. The difference would seem to be that there is
considerably less tolerance for hot air in the science/math realms.
And this I chalk up to a greater intellectual rigor, discipline, and
comprehension of the material and its limitations.
leste...@worldnet.att.net
While not entirely disagreeing with your first point, I suspect that
you are equating the concept of science in general with empiricism, an
interpretation with which I entirely disagree.
>
>Tom
Regards - Lester