Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Doc Dutch said:
Isn't forming a hypothesis and confirming it's truthfulness or falsity part of the scientific method?

As for Newton; are you saying the laws of motion don't work the same on an exoplanet as they do on Earth? Or are you saying that, at the quantum level or inside a black hole, they change? If the latter, I agree. Change the conditions of the variables and the results will change too.

Agreed on observation. Still, results count. Making a pulley is applied science. Understanding the fundamentals of how gravity works is a much deeper dive. Both are valid.
Click to expand...

Observation in and of itself isn't really science. Aristotle and the pre-Socratics wrote down a lot of observations

But they were wrong.

The critical part, which you metion is testing and falsification.

Newton's laws work perfectly well, until you start getting into inertial frames of reference closer to the speed of light. That's where relativity really becomes important.

Agreed. I think inductive logic and the scientific method are among the most important human achievements. Can't imagine the world without them
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Philosophy has proposed countless "ideal societies". Which one is correct?
Click to expand...

We will never have an ideal society until science develops reliable DNA tests to determine who should procreate and who should just fuck for fun.

An ideal society will require ideal inhabitants. That's fairly obvious.
 
BidenPresident said:
Should I marry this person? Explain how science helps me make that decision.
Click to expand...

Do you not observe how the person acts? Do you not feel a physical attraction to them? Surely it isn't "pure reason" that attracts you to someone. Given that you are an animal you are driven in much the same way animals are driven in terms of attraction and mating.
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Do you not observe how the person acts? Do you not feel a physical attraction to them? Surely it isn't "pure reason" that attracts you to someone. Given that you are an animal you are driven in much the same way animals are driven in terms of attraction and mating.
Click to expand...

So, no, science does not help me decide whether to marry this person.
 
BidenPresident said:
Should I marry this person? Explain how science helps me make that decision.
Click to expand...

You and the person would have to submit the requested data, undergo the requisite DNA and psychology testing,
and also specify what the goal of the marriage would be.

That's pretty easy to understand, actually.
 
Cypress said:
Observation in and of itself isn't really science. Aristotle and the pre-Socratics wrote down a lot of observations

But they were wrong.

The critical part, which you metion is testing and falsification.

Newton's laws work perfectly well, until you start getting into inertial frames of reference closer to the speed of light. That's where relativity really becomes important.

Agreed. I think inductive logic and the scientific method are among the most important human achievements. Can't imagine the world without them
Click to expand...
I disagree. Observation is a basic step to science. How could you and I form a theory about a person's mental condition without first observing them? We then form a hypothesis about their condition then test it through various means. Same goes for theories in physics, biology, whatever. Observation isn't an end to itself, but it's certainly a first step to understanding.

Newton's apocryphal story of the apple tree was the first step to him focusing more on the basics of both gravity and motion.
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Philosophy has proposed countless "ideal societies". Which one is correct?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they came up with the ideal answer.

You need to respond to what I actually wrote, not to what you wished I wrote.


There are questions that are not open to scientific investigation, and now you have come around to tacitly agree.
 
Cypress said:
I didn't say they came up with the ideal answer.

You need to respond to what I actually wrote, not to what you wished I wrote.
Click to expand...

Actually you just confirmed my point. My point is that countless ideal societies indicates that there is no actual necessarily "true" answer. Certainly not one that can be arrived at through pure reason per se. That's why I asked it as I did. Think of it like religion. Which religion is most correct? The answer is: since there are so many dramatically different and often mutually exclusive "truths" that none of those truths carry much value.

And before you think I'm just dissing philosophy, nothing could be further from the truth. Philosophy has value but, IMHO, primarily in structuring our thoughts, not necessarily at figuring out if, indeed, the categorical imperative is MORE true than some other philosophical thought.

Philosophy's value comes in understanding how to reason through the observations.

There are questions that are not open to scientific investigation, and now you have come around to tacitly agree.
Click to expand...

No, I think science can, indeed, estimate a better "ideal society" than just pure philosophical musing. Given that science STARTS with observation it will arrive at a more true answer than pure reason.
 
BidenPresident said:
Must have missed it. Let us say someone is dating Susan. How does science tell someone whether to marry Susan rather than someone else? And at what time?
Click to expand...

Is Susan compatible with the person? Does the person wish to procreate? Does Susan have the physical features and general affect that the person wants in their offspring? Does Susan dress attractively in order to entice the person to wish to be with her physically?

The list goes on.

To my knowledge there is no "pure reason" method for selecting a mate. In fact, given what we know about biology, I suspect the choice to date Susan and to mate with her is LARGELY driven by physical needs/desires.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I disagree. Observation is a basic step to science. How could you and I form a theory about a person's mental condition without first observing them? We then form a hypothesis about their condition then test it through various means. Same goes for theories in physics, biology, whatever. Observation isn't an end to itself, but it's certainly a first step to understanding.

Newton's apocryphal story of the apple tree was the first step to him focusing more on the basics of both gravity and motion.
Click to expand...

Observation is not unique to science. It's not what makes up the meat and potatoes of science, although it is important part of the process

MAGA and you can observe Vlad Putin's actions and come to radically different conclusions. MAGA and you can observe changing climate and come to opposite conclusions.

The radical part of the scientific method, and this gets credited to Francis Bacon, is the testing and falsification of a hypothesis that germinates in observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top