CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Philosophy as a scientific tool or measure is completely useless, Not ever considered.
Simply put, I believe philosophy, philosophies and philosophers are useless in the wake of scientific discovery and furthermore I believe it should never be considered in a scientific debate. Philosophies are human words that try to relay constructs of form or reason, but are useless as models to come to truth. They are metadata, and if not transcribed to the correct part of the brain, they can be like a bad computer virus, copying over and over the wrong information and interrupting thought.
This being a purely and ironically philosophical debate, I believe I can sum up my position as follows. Science builds models based on the interpolation of facts. There is no room in the conclusion for philosophical equivocations. The facts must either fall or stand on their own strengths, whether or not a group of sociologists remarks on their voracity. The only philosophical point of science is the one that defines its use in society as a tool for finding truths, and that is a philosophical debate the entire world has had many times over, and one for which universal consensus has been reached.
I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains. The fact is that when we are young we have a structured world view, from our parents or from our schools or from our friends, and that world view is just a list of fact or fictions that allow us to derive opinions on subjects. Sometimes these world views allow people to believe things without proper evidence, which is a failure of the recording process, being that it is interrupted at some point. In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly. Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result. They can’t put the new data in between the current data, their brain refuses to interpolate.
I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.
I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains. The fact is that when we are young we have a structured world view, from our parents or from our schools or from our friends, and that world view is just a list of fact or fictions that allow us to derive opinions on subjects. Sometimes these world views allow people to believe things without proper evidence, which is a failure of the recording process, being that it is interrupted at some point. In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly. Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result. They can’t put the new data in between the current data, their brain refuses to interpolate.
I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.
I use the word to refer to the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains.
Really? So when you said ”Science builds models based on the interpolation of facts.”, you meant “Science builds models based the information that stems from scientific discovery once it has entered our brains”? Well, that’s circular and incorrect. If you had used the word “interpretation” as I suspect you meant to, then your post would have been correct.
In these cases data has been coallated by the brain, then randomly accessed when needed in order to recall, but not interpolated properly
If by “coallated”, you mean “collated”, then what you are saying is that when our worldview allows us to believe things without sufficient evidence, it is because the brain has organized data for random access but has not inserted, introduced, or interjected the data properly. This too is not typically true. If a conclusion is faulty as a result of an inaccurate or incorrect worldview, then data has not been “interpreted” properly. This faulty interpretation is the result of faulty premises which compose the worldview in question. Meaning data is reintroduced properly, it is just inaccurate data.
Meaning that it is not reintroduced in the proper directory, because the sub-routine won’t allow some portion of it through the interpolated result.
This describes a neurological disorder concerning the organization of mental information, not an issue of philosophy as it relates to science. Using the word “interpretation” would fix this error.
I literally mean they struggle to re-record the data associated to truth from factual models, because they have a hard time introducing the new evidences and finding them to be truthful factual models of the environment.
Interesting, because what you literally said was ” The facts must either fall or stand on their own strengths, whether or not a group of sociologists remarks on their voracity”. Sociology is a social science.
The only philosophical point of science is the one that defines its use in society as a tool for finding truths
This too is incorrect, I will address it in the more relevant post on the right.
It doesn’t matter how you ‘interpret’ the data, the data could be taught and in that case, it’s been interpreted for you. If you read s scientific book then the information has been interpreted for you once again. An interpretation being the definitions of the individual words. Once that information has passed into the brain, certain ideas need to placed beside other ideas in our heads. For example.
You could read a book on dinosaurs, and it tells you that dinosaurs evolved 60 million years ago. But because your church tells you that the world is only 8000 years old, you may not think a book on archaeology trumps the magic stories in the bible. So now inside your head you have two opposing views stuck right next to each other. What should happen and usually does in most cases is that a bulk of scientific facts and models get transcribed in our minds, which replace the theological information, eventually causing the person to become disenfranchised from religiosity because the information is interpolated properly. That is the that the new information or concepts are placed in between the current or previous information, and the overall equation has a series of new definitions, based on the interpolation of the facts.
These data points can be configured into an algebraic solution that give you a model.
W plus x times y divided by z.
This model may or not be correct.
New data points come into being, but it is unclear where the new data points fit into the equation. The new data must be reinterpolated, so that the new model can become more or less accurate than the old model. Meaning literally the new data points must be set in the equation with the other data points, and the equation must be re-solved.
Science does this constantly, it’s always always trying to reinterpolate data to refine a particular theory or equation.
An interpretation is an alternate explanation based on the connotation or quantitative understanding of words themselves. I think you don’t understand the intrinsic difference between the two words and the concepts that bely them.
If you’re talking about science, then it absolutely does matter. Just as a refresher, “interpret” means “to explain the meaning of” or “to understand as having a particular meaning or significance”. “Science” is a process of “observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”.
Interpretation is much more than semantics, and science is much more that simple data collection. The scientific method is a process of and for interpretation designed (by philosophers) to allow us to understand the natural world.
Once that information has passed into the brain, certain ideas need to placed beside other ideas in our heads.
Both neurology and epistemology will tell you that this isn’t how the brain or the mind works. Ideas are not “beside” other ideas. The brain is neither a computer nor a card catalogue. It is a common mistake to compare the mind and body to whatever new technology happens to exist. While there are some analogous features, it is an error to believe the brain works like a computer.
You could read a book on dinosaurs, and it tells you that dinosaurs evolved 60 million years ago. But because your church tells you that the world is only 8000 years old, you may not think a book on archaeology trumps the magic stories in the bible. So now inside your head you have two opposing views stuck right next to each other. What should happen and usually does in most cases is that a bulk of scientific facts and models get transcribed in our minds, which replace the theological information, eventually causing the person to become disenfranchised from religiosity because the information is interpolated properly.
If scientific information is not integrated (the correct word here) into a persons worldview because of religious beliefs, there is not a mental organization error. They reject the premises of science because they have accepted conflicting premises. If they do integrate conflicting scientific information, then they will have to resolve their cognitive dissonance, either by rejecting the premise of their faith, or by maintaining the rejection of the scientific information. The subject in question interpolates nothing in this case. They accept or deny one premise or another. If they “integrate” correct premises into their worldview, then they will “interpret” information more accurately. Whether they do this or not, they may occasionally “interpolate” or insert their beliefs into conversation or text.
If you have data.
W x y and z.
These data points can be configured into an algebraic solution that give you a model.
W plus x times y divided by z.
This model may or not be correct.
New data points come into being, but it is unclear where the new data points fit into the equation. The new data must be reinterpolated, so that the new model can become more or less accurate than the old model. Meaning literally the new data points must be set in the equation with the other data points, and the equation must be re-solved.
Whether the new information should be inserted, or whether it should replace x, depends on how the information is interpreted. The whole equation (including when, whether and where to add, multiply etc) depends on interpretation, which is what the science helps us do. Scientists utilize models wherein data can be interpolated, but that hardly illustrates the wider range and role that science has.
Science does this constantly, it’s always always trying to reinterpolate data to refine a particular theory or equation.
To reinterpolate would be to insert or interject data again. Though scientist will sometimes rearrange and add/subtract variables of an equation, this is done in an effort to more accurately interpret the information. I get strong impression that you simply used the wrong word and are now trying to find context wherein you can claim that you didn’t.
An interpretation is an alternate explanation based on the connotation or quantitative understanding of words themselves
That is not what interpretation means. I will direct you to the top of this post for an accurate definition of interpretation.
“It would be a self-imposed ignorance to denounce emotion and thought (humanistic is the only kind we have). Self-imposed ignorance is not reasonable, which is probably why we have scientific fields of study devoted to understanding emotions and thought.”
Very shortly here on Earth, we will be able to derive an opinion based on all known factual data, interpolated with no humanistic intervention(classical selfish human nature ie: humans are more important than whales cause we can do math), or emotional, or denominational attributes or opinions in the form of Artificial Intelligence. When a true AI interpolates data, it will do do without the base of experiential knowledge, because it won’t have any. It will have pure logically modelled thinking, and will most likely be the best way to come up with and test theoretical models that have such obscure results as conclusions, that they may have been wrappped up in human mysticism and lore for eternity.
Emotional, humanistic and denominational opinions are not a good way to come to factual, empirical revelations. As evidenced by the sheer amount of selfish behaviour of societies and leaders throughout time.
Very shortly here on Earth, we will be able to derive an opinion based on all known factual data, interpolated with no humanistic intervention
No we won’t. First, all known factual data will not be available even to the most sophisticated system. Second, human intervention will determine what opinions are derived from AI. Third, thoughts and emotions will be subjects of study for which AI will be utilized. This is because thoughts and emotions are a fact of existence, which is why it would be self imposed ignorance to denounce them.
It will have pure logically modelled thinking
Logic is a product and field of philosophy.
classical selfish human nature ie: humans are more important than whales cause we can do math
I don’t think anyone believes this. Rather people believe that humans are more important than whales because we are humans. It would be irrational for a species to value another species above its own. If AI derives any value based opinions, it’s value structure will have been a program based on philosophy.
Philosophy is ideas. Ideas are in your head. Everything outside the idea that your heart beats so you are alive, is open to intpretation. You are alive, you can think, react, move about your environment. You can have fuzzy happy feelings. You can be sad. You can hallucinate, you can have a feverish dream. So what does this mean? It means that even your eyes are not a pathway to truth, illusionists know that well, so why would you assume the ideas inside of your head, ideas which construct your view of the world, have any bearing whatsoever when it comes to facts.
Water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. What do you think of that. Why do I care what you think. If I can refer in my mind to the model of the universe that is true, what can your strong opinions have to say about this fact.
Before science was able to unravel complex systems, like bodily functions or germs and bacteria, we, as a race had to rely on philosophy to give us or lead us to truth. There were only philosophical viewpoints, such as ‘Gentlemen don’t wash their hands between patients because they are endowed with the spirit of god, which protects from evil spirits’.
Once factual mathematical models were formed for certain calculations, we passed from being reliant on people’s blind assertions, to being individually reliant on a universal language. A language that has no singular connotations, and is immune from having multiple interpretations. As we uncover the mathematics of nature, we are no longer in need of philosophical notions to arrive at a truthful statement.
You have failed to address any of the counterpoints I have made. You persist in utilizing incorrect premises concerning the nature of philosophy and of science. Much like the religious person you bemoaned in your example, you have failed to integrate (yes that’s the word) the correct premise into your worldview or even to challenge the validity of the alternate premise I have presented. In the above summary, which amounts to little more than a repeat of already debunked notions, you even contradict yourself from the one part to the next. When I illustrate exactly how you are misusing words and concepts, you must address it. Repeating yourself is not sufficient. I don’t believe you will understand because I don’t believe you want to. Nonetheless, I’ll break down the above post for any onlookers who are interested.
-There is no philosophical proposition that says “my heart beats, therefore I am.” The famous statement “ I think therefore I am” is a statement about certainty, a highly relevant philosophical topic to science. The philosophy of science holds a view on certainty that causes most scientists to rarely ever refer to facts, the way you do.
-The first part of your post applies to the latter part of your post. When you say that ideas are in your head and that you cannot even trust your senses to gain knowledge, you are making a claim that applies equally to science as it does to philosophy. When you denigrate the validity of the senses, you forget how important observation is to science. When you denigrate the products of thought and reason, you forget the primarily conceptual nature of math and logic.
-You said that because of philosophy we had to rely on ideas such as “Gentlemen don’t wash their hands between patients because they are endowed with the spirit of god, which protects from evil spirits”. I’ve never heard of this philosophical position. Nonetheless, you fail to mention that we also relied on philosophical ideas such as logic from Aristotle , atomic materialism from Epicurus, or the Cartesian Coordinate system from the same guy who said “I think therefore I am”. You also fail to mention that science, for all its virtues, still gets matters of fact wrong all the time. Sure doctors didn’t use to wash their hands, now doctors provide psychotropics on a trial and error basis while they try to come up with a diagnosis.
-Your love of science is actually the more narrow love of math, which is far from the sum of what science is. But even math is tied to philosophy. The Pythagoreans were philosophical mystics who thought that math was secret magic. One of the discoverers of calculus was a philosopher who claimed that we live in “the best of all possible worlds”. When you say that we have math so we do not need philosophical notions, you fail to realize that math is a philosophical notion. You might as well say we have circles so we don’t need shapes.
If you still do not accept my challenges to your position, don’t merely repeat yourself. Address what I’ve said.
*integrate is a good word, but it seems to imply that the current information being in place, should be regarded as immovable, but I would argue in order to interpolate data properly into ones world view, it may be necessary to delete some assertions, not simply put them next to each other and regard both as truthful. You can see this problem over and over again in religious people who can’t discriminate between physical proof and existential proof.
Insofar as I’ve failed to properly assert my position, I will clarify it. Descartes, in his second mediation said “let him deceive me all he can, he will never make the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something”. Or consiousness implied existence.
So sorry that I was found to be quoting this, ‘innaccurately’, although I would contend that no matter how you word it, the spirit of the phrase is not diminished. It is meant to provide a statement of truth that cannot be countered, the idea that all external ideas are of a different metaphysical nature than the truth of ‘I think therefore I am’. This is not ‘an extremely relevant topic to science’, it is only useful as an incontrovertible supposition that’s good for protecting ones mind from religious dogma and the people who will attack you for your beliefs.
I find existentialism to be a useful body of ideas in everyday life, the idea that existence precedes essence, that we are defined by our actions as conscious beings, not by the presuppositions that others force us to embrace or deny. I find this particularly useful when disputing the ideas that other accuse me of having, although I don’t need to explain it to everyone, I do use it to promote truth in all subjects, mostly in my own mind!!!
I certainly do not denigrate any tennant of science or philosophy, I simply assert that there are limits to the types of truths that these human constructs can provide. You suppose we rely on logic, and I would retort that I have seen very little logic being applied by any of the participants in debates on this site. My main problem with philosophy is that we no longer operate under the principals that philosophy guided us to, and most people use their philosophical positions, which are in reality skewed and bastardized versions of Christian views from websites or televangelists. Every time I try to have an argument about actual contraventions of points of scientific findings, I am inundated by a flood of dewberries that try to convince me I’m going to hell, or I’m fooling myself, or some other blathering rhetoric.
As I believe I have shown, I have no problem with philosophy explaining and informing, changing our opinions on subjective viewpoints we all carry with us, but I also hold in high regard such concepts of; authenticity, integrity, and objectivity, which are points that most, if not all morally superior philosophers employ. Understanding ancient philosophy is very important for human understanding and evolution, but defining things without understanding them is a position you are more likely to come accross.
Could you please explain as an example but try to be as genuinely accurate as possible, how you think: philosophy could be an invaluable tool when involved in research of complicated systems such as evolution, or biology.
integrate is a good word, but it seems to imply that the current information being in place, should be regarded as immovable
I have previously mentioned cognitive dissonance. When a correct idea is integrated into ones worldview, it may conflict with a previously held notion. This contradiction creates the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance. One of the conflicting notions must be altered or regarded as false if the dissonance is to be addressed. But neither notion is deleted, and they are not side by side.
I use integrate because it is a verb regarding oneself, while interpolate is an insertion of something from someone else.
This is not ‘an extremely relevant topic to science
Descartes assertion is just one way to think about certainty, which is what I said was an extremely relevant topic to science.
I certainly do not denigrate any tennant of science or philosophy, I simply assert that there are limits to the types of truths that these human constructs can provide.
This applies to everything, including science.
You suppose we rely on logic, and I would retort that I have seen very little logic being applied by any of the participants in debates on this site.
We must rely on logic if we are going to write coherent scientific articles, conduct experiments, or do anything at all in the pursuit of truth. The fact that people on a website engage in logical fallacies, such as appeals to authority, has no bearing on the relevance of philosophy to science.
My main problem with philosophy is that we no longer operate under the principals that philosophy guided us to
If your problem with philosophy is that it is ignored, then your position should be the opposite of what it has been thus far.
Every time I try to have an argument about actual contraventions of points of scientific findings, I am inundated by a flood of dewberries that try to convince me I’m going to hell, or I’m fooling myself, or some other blathering rhetoric
You shouldn’t be engaging in scientific conversations with these types of people, but. Bad philosophy should not reflect poorly on philosophy as such. Might as well do away with reason because of people who are unreasonable.
Understanding ancient philosophy is very important for human understanding and evolution, but defining things without understanding them is a position you are more likely to come accross.
It’s not important for a person to know that what they are doing relates to ancient philosophy. But this would not make it unrelated.
Could you please explain as an example but try to be as genuinely accurate as possible, how you think: philosophy could be an invaluable tool when involved in research of complicated systems such as evolution, or biology.
Science itself is a philosophical exercise. That’s why I cited Aristotle, who is accurately considered one of our earliest scientist. His philosophical studies invented formal logic, and contributed to physics, biology, botany, political science, medicine, and more. You cannot properly carry out an experiment if you do not engage logic and reason.
As I referenced earlier, science is what we call philosophy when a field becomes narrow and rigorous. Most areas still considered philosophy are simply things we do not know how to test yet (Testability as a measure of scientific validity is another philosophical position). Some scientists have derogatorily regarded superstring theory as mere philosophy due to its lack of testability. Well, that may be true, but it needn’t be derogatory.
As for me calling you a liar concerning your service. Please take it as little more than aggressive advice. If you call on your own unsubstantiated experience to add weight to your position, anyone else can call on their own greater, equally unsubstantiated experience, while disagreeing. You can call them a liar, but why shouldn’t they call you a liar as well? If you set about making positive claims concerning how your unsubstantiated experience relates to someone else’s unknowable experience, you will never know if, when, or to what extent you are being foolish.
Firstly, the definition of interpolate as google defines it is inaccurate as far as I can tell. You have to go to Webster’s in order to get a sensible definition of the word as I understand it.
Cognitive dissonance is the state of HAVING inconsistent beliefs, not the act that takes place when your reviewing data. Ie: “illustrations were interpolated into the text”. In this case it means pictures mixed in with words that can be viewed together, to gain perspective. In order to record data in our minds, we have to take in data from a myriad of sources, text, auditory, visual and metaphysical(only in your head). From these sources of information, a person may be convinced of a thing, but that thing may be countered by a different source. Humans must interpolate these data points, constantly experiencing and viewing new material of different sources, so they may create a set of beliefs.
I believe I’m using the word properly, the root Latin ‘polire’ means to ‘polish’, interpolat - means altered.
My argument is my opinion is based from a different perspective.
I believe that philosophy can tell you how to come to facts, it can tell u when to believe someone’s assertions, it can tell u how moral to be when searching out these facts, it can tell u how to interpret the results of factual models, it can even tell u what to do once you have discovered a fact BUT it my contention that once these factual mathematical models of the universe are discovered, they have a certain quality that almost all other information lacks. That is consistent repeatable certainty, that does not require conscious beings to believe in them. Certain things will be true today for humans, true tomorrow for aliens and until the end of the universe.
These truths are hard to identify because we are by nature prone to believe what we can see and hear, but most of the time misinterpreted by our consciousness, and since language governs our inderstanding, we believe it is integral to the equation. It is not.
it my contention that once these factual mathematical models of the universe are discovered, they have a certain quality that almost all other information lacks. That is consistent repeatable certainty, that does not require conscious beings to believe in them
This debate was presented as science vs philosophy. I argued that these are not in opposition or even particularly distinct.
Just as ethics is not the sum total of philosophy, math is not the sum total of science. It does not take math to make an objective fact. The things that are true, remain true regardless of belief. This isn’t only true for mathematical facts.
since language governs our inderstanding, we believe it is integral to the equation.
If it is the case that language governs our understanding, then it is integral to our equations if we ever hope to understand them. Facts that cannot be understood are still facts, but they lack meaning and use. The mathematical facts that we have not yet put into the language of our equations are currently worthless. Discovering them, and making them useful, will be a scientific endeavor and a philosophical pursuit.
I didn’t say philosophy only argues, see the qualifier. Do you think I could make cogent arguments if I believed that philosophy only argued one point. Are you projecting your blatant wonton lack of thinking into people around you?
Good. It seems you’ve come to understand that philosophy has a broad scope. In your post you discount the field of ethics in favor of the field of metaphysics.
So, now that you understand that philosophy does not only pertain to morals, perhaps you can see that philosophy also pertains to matters of fact, which is why philosophy begot science, and both utilize the other.
Philosophy can pertain to as many things as it wants, and inside your head it can create the most holistic and accurate model of moral thought, and human accomplishment. But it cannot detract from the fact that 1.1 + 2.2 = 3.3.
Now this is fuckn stupid. So your a teacher, a child asked how many people just died from gun violence in their school. You say, well it’s a philosophical position derived from Socrates, and then reaffirmed in the post modern movement and adopted by Plato, that the numbers we have derived from ancient Latin nomenclature are indistinct and any definitive true and accurate position because they haven’t been verified by sociological constructs and modern models of accuracy throughout the society today.
That is fucking stupid. If someone asked me the length of a hypotenuse, I wouldn’t give them a history lesson about Pythagoras. But if someone said something ignorant like “the length of a hypotenuse has nothing to do with philosophy”, then I might be inclined to point out exactly why they are wrong, as I have done with you.
My experience surpasses yours in all topics we debate. This gives me a more authoritative perspective than you. If that sounds like a bullshit lie, it’s because I’m mimicing you.
So it’s your assertion that without philosophical discourse, no conscious being can by the fact that A squared plus B squared equal C squared. That is ignorance on a universal scale. Since my assertion IS a philosophical position, I understand the argument your making. But You have to come eventually to the realization that absolutely no moral equivocations are necessary for facts to be correct or for math to make predictions. They ARE necessary for humans to make sence out of them and for humans to use them for a purpose, but as I said before, Facts don’t need human opinions to be facts, they’ll be facts when you die, and they still will be facts when the human race is a smouldering ash pile.
So it’s your assertion that without philosophical discourse, no conscious being can by the fact that A squared plus B squared equal C squared.
I love this game people play. It’s so obvious. I say one thing, then you say “so what you’re saying is...” followed by something I’m not saying. Not only Is it not my assertion, it’s not even a coherent sentence. Even so, discourse is not required for philosophy.
But You have to come eventually to the realization that absolutely no moral equivocations are necessary for facts to be correct or for math to make predictions.
I’ve never asserted otherwise. You said “Simply put, I believe philosophy, philosophies and philosophers are useless in the wake of scientific discovery and furthermore I believe it should never be considered in a scientific debate.” That is what I am arguing against.
You’ve repeated conflated philosophy with “moral equivocation”. I have repeatedly corrected you. So, do you wish to discuss philosophy or moral equivocation? They aren’t the same.
I said before, Facts don’t need human opinions to be facts
This isn’t a point of contention. It also has nothing to do with the relationship between philosophy and anything else.
That is fucking stupid. If someone asked me the length of a hypotenuse, I wouldn’t give them a history lesson about Pythagoras.
That's exactly what you would do. You'd deflect the point entirely and then lecture us about an unrelated topic.
My experience surpasses yours in all topics we debate
Amarel, you literally understand nothing that you discuss. Like many others here, your interpretation of debate is steadfast resistance in the face of all evidence that you are wrong.
No, it is based on everything you have ever written. It is the opposite of baseless.
Reason changes my mind
No it doesn't. You once argued for three days that the Iraq War was legal, despite being presented with a smorgasbord of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Tellingly, the only person selling your reasonableness and intellect is you.
All that happened in that debate is you illustrated your ignorance of sovereignty, law, and international relations.
That's the precise opposite of what occurred. You argued that the war against Iraq was legal because America is a sovereign country, but you failed to acknowledge that Iraq is also a sovereign country, and hence has legal rights under international law.
As I previously mentioned, the only person selling your arguments as rational is you, and that is because they are the precise opposite of rational. Frankly, you are one of the biggest liars and con artists on this entire site, if not the actual biggest. At least 90 percent of what you say is either outright false or a deliberate distortion of the facts, the above comment being a pertinent example.
By your logic, we need to examine the moral and societal morphisms that people devise in order to figure out what numbers were allowed to assign to symbols? 1 equals a constructed version of the manocentric aristocracy that believes in the voracity of thier post modern constructed assertion, which is believed to be .4 and .6, but at this school we don’t believe in such antiquated sociological manifestations. This is literally how stupid a lot of the arguments that comes out of the belief that philosophy trumps science sound.
By your logic, we need to examine the moral and societal morphisms that people devise in order to figure out what numbers were allowed to assign to symbols?
By my logic ? What are you babbling about ?
You stated ,
Philosophy argues whether or not something is morally good, or whether moral values can really be moral if they incite hate.
So what about the philosophy of Mathematics and questions regarding the foundations of mathematics ?
I asked you ....So what about the philosophy of Mathematics and questions regarding the foundations of mathematics ?
I asked you to adddress a simple question regarding your opinion about what you actually stated philosophy is in your narrow viewpoint , the rest of your post is meaningless babble
Didn’t take you long Nom to show up with your alt accounts , as usual being the coward you are you show your true colours because you’ve no argument to defend your position , so please go ahead and resort to your usual downvoting so no one can see your latest humiliation
Didn’t take you long Nom to show up with your alt accounts
What is this obsession you have with calling everybody Nom? Is this some inside joke I am unaware of or are you just mad?
as usual being the coward you are you show your true colours because you’ve no argument to defend your position
My argument is that you have obviously misconstrued what you have read. In fact now you have done it twice.
You accuse me of being a coward, but I am not the one of us who is too much of a pussy to admit he misread what the other guy said. You would sooner attack me, an innocent bystander, than admit you made a mistake.
I argue that you are a professional failure who projects his own faults and insecurities onto other people.
Your inane rants are typical as a usual tactic as you cannot post a meaningful sentence without contradicting yourself , can you ever actually make a point without totally contradicting yourself you idiotic troll ?
Firstly, the definition of interpolate as google defines it is inaccurate as far as I can tell. You have to go to Webster’s in order to get a sensible definition of the word as I understand it.
Cognitive dissonance is the state of HAVING inconsistent beliefs, not the act that takes place when your reviewing data. Ie: “illustrations were interpolated into the text”. In this case it means pictures mixed in with words that can be viewed together, to gain perspective. In order to record data in our minds, we have to take in data from a myriad of sources, text, auditory, visual and metaphysical(only in your head). From these sources of information, a person may be convinced of a thing, but that thing may be countered by a different source. Humans must interpolate these data points, constantly experiencing and viewing new material of different sources, so they may create a set of beliefs.
I believe I’m using the word properly, the root Latin ‘polire’ means to ‘polish’, interpolat - means altered.
My argument is my opinion is based from a different perspective.
I believe that philosophy can tell you how to come to facts, it can tell u when to believe someone’s assertions, it can tell u how moral to be when searching out these facts, it can tell u how to interpret the results of factual models, it can even tell u what to do once you have discovered a fact BUT it my contention that once these factual mathematical models of the universe are discovered, they have a certain quality that almost all other information lacks. That is consistent repeatable certainty, that does not require conscious beings to believe in them. Certain things will be true today for humans, true tomorrow for aliens and until the end of the universe.
These truths are hard to identify because we are by nature prone to believe what we can see and hear, but most of the time misinterpreted by our consciousness, and since language governs our inderstanding, we believe it is integral to the equation. It is not.
The scientific process is itself derived from the philosophy of science.
Every field of science was once called philosophy prior to scientific rigor and specificalization. Philosophy is a precursor, which hardly makes it useless.
Philosophy is the discourse or world view explanation that attempts to give value to ideas instead of facts. Of course there could be a philosophy that denounces emotion and humanistic thought, and purely promoted scientific, non-denominational, arguments to come to truth but that ‘philosophy’ would still do nothing to help come to factual proof. The facts make the proof, and the method to reach these facts is not in dispute by a philosophical debate.
I completely agree that philosophy raised people’s perception by promoting the tennants of science, but when your in science itself, interpolating raw data, absolutely no philosophical position is relevant. When you build models from the data you’ve gathered, there is no ‘point of view’ that is any more valid than any other. This is the problem some people have, they cannot separate their Moral positions, from the irrefutable position that science has no need of thier moral equivocations.
Philosophy is the discourse or world view explanation that attempts to give value to ideas instead of facts.
If this excessively narrow and incorrect view of philosophy is a premise in your position, then we have identified the error. Philosophy originally meant the love of wisdom. Which is why philosophers ultimately utilized reason which lead to the scientific method in their pursuits of accurate information. In modern terms, philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality, to include existence, knowledge, and facts themselves. As such, science is a creation and a tool of and for philosophy.
Of course there could be a philosophy that denounces emotion and humanistic thought, and purely promoted scientific, non-denominational, arguments to come to truth but that ‘philosophy’ would still do nothing to help come to factual proof.
It would be a self-imposed ignorance to denounce emotion and thought (humanistic is the only kind we have). Self-imposed ignorance is not reasonable, which is probably why we have scientific fields of study devoted to understanding emotions and thought.
The facts make the proof, and the method to reach these facts is not in dispute by a philosophical debate.
If you are familiar with statistics, then you are aware that the same set of factual data can tell two different, even opposing stories depending on how that information is presented. The data is objective, but it is necessarily viewed subjectively. This is true for everything. As such, philosophy will always have a role to play in science. Science will always have a role in proper philosophy. You cannot have one without the other.
Though you failed to address my post, I will take this time to clarify. The philosophy of science is a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the logic (a field of philosophy) through which we build scientific knowledge. If you have an opinion about this, you are engaging in philosophy.
The philosophy of science, is not science. Science being the practise of building models from empirical data to explain or quantify some part of the external universe, philosophy being how other people feel about things. Unfortunately this is a point that so many people get confused, because science doesn’t care how you feel.
The fact that 9 different groups of people can derive 9 different interpretations from the same data doesn’t make all 9 different points of view correct. It just means some concepts are incredibly counter-intuitive, like say the mathematical laws that explain the model of electromagnetic and electromotive forces that explain energy creation or use.
As I said before philosophy allows us to build moral equivocations about ideas and concepts, but science does not derive it’s functional basis from philosophical viewpoints. People take scientific models and concepts and Apply philosophical views to that knowledge usually altering how concepts are interpolated into their worldview. Those concepts have a truth or an untruth that is completely independent of the moral equivocations humans apply to those concepts, this is not in dispute.
Interesting exchange between you and Amarel , to me the scientific method’ is not singular and straightforward, and that there are basic disputes about what scientific methodology should look like. These issues are ‘philosophical’, but they nevertheless have real consequences for how science is done.
On the face these sound like they could be philosophical positions.
But I would contend that these are factual pronouncements. The earth either is, or isn’t. The fact that humans are able to see, feel and hear and carry an opinion as to the extent of existence, is completely differentiated from that position by the actual fact that it does exist.
If a tree falls in the forrest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound. Yes. Clearly the disturbance of air and soil that happpended as the tree fell still sent oscillating waves of disturbance through the air around it. Now this is my opinion, and could be argued to be just a philosophical position, but that position has no authority to say for sure whether or not the tree did make a sound. The Truth is, it either did or did not, and whether it did or did not is not an opinion, it is a fact.
No it isn’t. But there would be no science without a philosophy of science, or philosophy in general for that matter.
Science being the practise of building models from empirical data to explain or quantify some part of the external universe, philosophy being how other people feel about things
That’s not what philosophy is. I’ve already defined it for you on the other side. You can feel free to post a definition that differs from mine, but nowhere will you find a commonly accepted definition that correlates to your misunderstanding of philosophy here. Have you ever heard of Natural Philosophy?
Unfortunately this is a point that so many people get confused, because science doesn’t care how you feel
The science of psychology may care how you feel, if how you feel is relevant to a given experiment. Regardless, how you feel is not what philosophy is.
The fact that 9 different groups of people can derive 9 different interpretations from the same data doesn’t make all 9 different points of view correct
Whether they are correct or not depends on whether they accurately reflect reality. Different interpretations can be be true so long as they do not contradict.
As I said before philosophy allows us to build moral equivocations about ideas and concepts, but science does not derive it’s functional basis from philosophical viewpoints.
It’s a misunderstanding of philosophy to believe the only existing field of philosophy is ethics. Science does derive its functional basis from philosophy. It is philosophy that first said we ought to seek truth and it was philosophers that came up with the methods and means which you now call science. The Truth that scientists seek most often relies on what philosophers call the Correspondence Theory of Truth. A concept presented by one of the greatest philosophers, Aristotle, who was, accordingly, one of the worlds earliest scientists.
People take scientific models and concepts and Apply philosophical views to that knowledge usually altering how concepts are interpolated into their worldview.
There’s your misuse of that word again. Integrated. The word here is integrated.
Those concepts have a truth or an untruth that is completely independent of the moral equivocations humans apply to those concepts, this is not in dispute.
No it isn’t. What is in dispute is that your view of philosophy. Philosophy provides all the tools of the scientist, from notions of Truth to structures of Logic, to the scientific method itself. That’s because science is nothing more than focused philosophy.
But I would contend that these are factual pronouncements.
There is nothing about a pronouncement’s factuality that makes it more or less philosophical. You seem to think that the difference between science and philosophy is the same difference between objectivity and subjectivity. But it isn’t. Rather philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and science is a tool to that end.
You also seem to think that science deals in facts while philosophy deals in opinions. This too is incorrect. The nature of reality is a matter of fact. Understanding that nature, to whatever scope or degree, is the goal of both science and philosophy.
Whether the dinosaurs died from meteor is a matter of fact. Scientists believed they died from a volcanic catastrophe as recently as 30 years ago. Scientists also believed that was significant genetic difference between races and that ulcers were caused by stress. These matter of science were factually incorrect. Just as science adjusts with new information, so does philosophy. But no one will adjust their outlook if they reject a new premise, whether they are scientifically inclined or not. However, it is philosophy that may convince them to do so.
