0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The problem, as described by the person who coined the term in the first place:http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
Just me or do a few statements there seem to act as the end itself, rather than a means to an end? 'Truth cannot be known through sensory perception, only through logos', for example. And I'm thinking 'knowing such truth, towards what end?' and...it seems like towards no end. It's just knowing truth is the end itself of knowing truth?In the very least it seems to have no way of failure - you have no way of failing, because knowing truth is the end sought, but it's also the only measure of whether you achieved that end.
Koch and Crick outlining how and why one should look for the neural correlates of consciousnesshttp://www.klab.caltech.edu/Papers/438.pdf
Had a religious person at the door."Truth doesn't change"Took a few seconds for me to disentangle something from that.Me "It depends on what you're refering to by truth. We used to think the sun orbited the earth...""Ah, but that isn't true"Me "We thought it was truth"Had to disintangle that kind of truth from a truth that never changes. It's hard to do. Far easier to make the Gordian knot than it is to disentangle it.
Thanks for this Jorge. I too have had problems trying to communicate the idea of Chalmers philo-zombies. It makes so much sense to me, yet I cannot for the life of me express why it matters to others.Also, as an aside, loved the line about Vox saving orphans.
Quote from: JorgeKoch and Crick outlining how and why one should look for the neural correlates of consciousnesshttp://www.klab.caltech.edu/Papers/438.pdfI think common culture needs some way of breaking down these papers into what fits into more common discussion. Which is to say I need one (okay, I looked at it and...man, I'd prefer to look at uncommented code).Perhaps you could take a position on it Jorge, that's arguable, then there's a fun context (everone loves arguing) with which to read the document, instead of taking it as a raw data dump?
:?: Isn't causality an assumption? The greatest of precepts?
What I'm getting at is, if science is predicated upon such a huge assumption - and the Scientific Method surely relies upon causality to be meaningful - then what makes scientific claims any more epistemically valid than religious claims, which simply assume the existence of supernatural entities and create logical proofs from there?In that case, isn't it merely a matter of 'choose-your-prejudice'?This has been bugging me for the better part of a year now...
I guess scientists would point to the apparent successes of their methods and the successive steps of discovery (e.g., the steps taken to get from Newton's laws of motion to the Mars rover) as evidence for the validity of the scientific method. I think any "good" scientist will never say that anything to come out of science is the final and definitive answer; it's just the best explanation we have yet developed ("And just look at the cool technology that has come if it!").
+1 Meyna.Philosophy didn't make a rocket ship, the scientific method did?
Quote from: MadnessPhilosophy didn't make a rocket ship, the scientific method did?No, but see, that's merely begging the question.But if causality is a mistaken assumption (and there's no way to tell one way or the other, is there?), then the scientific method didn't make anything, did it? Without causality at all, events are totally unrelated to each other. At any rate, the ostensible utility of science in solving puzzles isn't relevant to the actual epistemic validity of the scientific claims themselves - that is, the strength of the underlying assumptions. What makes causality a better assumption than God? In fact, why should either one be accepted?! The way it looks here, the choice is ultimately a matter of pure preference. A scientific world-view and a religious world-view are ultimately equally valid.One more thing: I was under the impression that science is simply Natural Philosophy, so distinguishing between science and philosophy isn't really correct?
Philosophy didn't make a rocket ship, the scientific method did?
I cringed for ambiguity writing my last post.Both Meyna and I grant the illusory correlation of causality. I don't Meyna made any claims about it but I do think the scientific method is a philosophy.I think in your initial questions, you frame a dichotomy. Philosophy would say that scientific claims are logically more valid - validity it not a measure of epistemological truth - than religious claims.Epistemic claims are subject to validity, a question of logic, which is not the same as epistemological truth.I've not partaken in the thread thus far but it is crucial to define terms as much as we can in this type of discussion, especially as the gradient to which one is introduced to academic philosophy, skews the matter entirely.
Quoteespecially as the gradient to which one is introduced to academic philosophy, skews the matter entirely.I saw it mentioned, and did a bit of Googling. *shrug* We'll go by your definitions I suppose: validity vs. truth. Validity = internal logical consistency?What makes religious claims less logically consistent than scientific ones?My impression is that religions use rigorous logic in theological proofs; the major issue is simply the assumption of a deity.Or is there more to it/am I muddling terms?
especially as the gradient to which one is introduced to academic philosophy, skews the matter entirely.
Quote from: Bakker UserValidity = internal logical consistency?Indeed. Complete falsehoods can be valid.Quote from: Bakker UserWhat makes religious claims less logically consistent than scientific ones?Creative rigour?Quote from: Bakker UserMy impression is that religions use rigorous logic in theological proofs; the major issue is simply the assumption of a deity.I'm optimistically agnostic. I have no real issue with religious claims, though I have huge issue with how religious claims are used to enable and excuse violence in the world. The study of philosophy covers only a small section of historical texts and Christianity uses only two, Augustine and Aquinas, who are concerned with reconciling their institution with the classic texts "rediscovered" in the Libraries of Islam and the Middle East at the end of the Dark Ages. Those two philosophers cover a number of years of seminary school.
Validity = internal logical consistency?
What makes religious claims less logically consistent than scientific ones?
My impression is that religions use rigorous logic in theological proofs; the major issue is simply the assumption of a deity.
Because science has a disproval method for it's theories.Religion does not.Even with causality, science is the practice of accepting that even if a test produces result Y in 1000 tests, on the 1001st test it may produce result X. Perhaps causality will not be the case at some point? Who knows?Perhaps god will not be the...pfff, yeah. As if that thought is entertained by religion.Religion and science aren't equal. Until religion provides emperical methods of proving it's theories wrong.
