Eise

This is not a topic of philosophy. The Trash Bin comes to my mind as a better alternative...

Well, I think when one is consistent in the meaning of words one is using, one surely fairs better than using words and shift their meanings. A lot of philosophical problems are caused or amplified by different meanings, in at least two ways: Different persons attach different meanings to a word. One person (slowly) shifts the meaning of a word when building up an argumentation (or jumps back and forth between different meanings). Both are used more or less intentionally (i.e. in bad faith!) by e.g. creationists ('Evolution is just a theory'; 'Big bang, therefore our God'). Yep. That is what I am saying. Just made one word bold to accentuate that one does not necessarily have to say it in this way. Depends on how you define 'writing'...

Why would that be important? 'Nothingness' is a funny substantiation of 'nothing'. 'Nothing' means the missing of something what is expected, or searched for. 'Did you find the invoices of last year?' 'No, I found nothing.' Building your philosophy of life, based on tricks language plays on you, is building your life on quicksand. When the closest approach to vacuum is the quantum vacuum, then you have to live with it. And he suggests that such a quantum vacuum is unstable. But I let that to real physicists to comment.

It is true that physical theories leave room for interpretation. One could call this 'philosophy'. But most of the times one needs a good insight in the physical theories in order to philosophise about them. And philosophers normally do not have the background for this. And slowly I am wondering what you are proposing. What would change if we see science as a subfield of philosophy? Can you make this more tangible? How does the work of scientists (or philosophers) changes when science is a subfield of philosophy? So philosophers should study physics too? Again: what would change? Yep. That's why it split up in different sciences. And now you want to put them all together again under the label 'philosophy'? Yes. For the moment I know two categories of these: Ideas that cannot yet be empirically tested. These are definitely scientific theories, but might be scientific hypotheses for a long time to come, or practically impossible to test (an accelerator with the size of the orbit of the earth?). Has nothing to do with philosophy. Ideas that never, principally can be tested. These are interpretations. To name those ideas under 2. 'philosophy' is in my opinion a bit of a stretch. Reality 'behind the scenes' once was metaphysics, but that is already a while ago. As mentioned earlier, modern metaphysics is concerned with other topics. Every science has its philosophical corners, where one questions its basic concepts, methods, or assumptions. But that does not make the sciences philosophy, or a subfield of it. For every human activity, not just science, one can ask basic questions. But that doesn't make these activities a subfield of philosophy either. Logic is the discipline how truth of propositions hang together with the truth (or falsity) of other propositions. People who think this are taking false assumptions (about which logic has nothing to say), or are wrongly applying concepts or logic itself.

It is not really new. It is just a small ambiguity in the daily meaning of 'to see'. But if you go to the museum, you better be aware that a torch might not be enough. Every professional thief is aware of this ambiguity, and takes his cigarettes with him. ;-) I do not disregard anything. Why would the way the light is produced be of any importance for my distinction? (oh forgot, you never answer questions I ask). I know only one or two readers who are at the brink of an intellectual psychosis... The rest already accepted that it is semantics. Explicitly working out the semantics seems to confuse you.

I am trying to understand what blocks you from understanding my point. It seems that you look at what happens in our visual system, eyes, nerves, brain. and there you are right, there is no difference. But there is a plain difference in the physics of seeing objects by reflection, or by seeing light. I'll try a more lively example. Imagine, you want to steal an expensive artifact from a museum. In the night of course. To be able to see, you take a torch with you. By its reflections on floor, walls etc you find your way. Close by the artifact, you become suspicious: maybe there is laser light crossing the way to the artifact. But you cannot see it. Your torch does not help you. So what do you do to find if there is some photo electric alarm? Luckily enough you are a smoker, and you have your cigarettes with you. So you light one, and blow the smoke in the room between you and the artifact. And yes! Now you see that the smoke is reflecting light, all on a fine straight line. So you need two different methods to see what you want to see: all normal objects you see in the light of your torch. The light beam however, you see exactly the opposite way: you add 'objects' (smoke particles) that show you were the laser beam goes through, instead of 'adding light' to see objects. Well, it is a physical fact. Why is that nonsense? As soon as most posters here said it is mainly a semantics question, this thread should have been moved to philosophy. So if some administrator wants to do that, please feel free...

That is great. But you do not see it because of daylight. You see it even better in the dark, right? Exactly the opposite with macro objects: those can be better seen in daylight.

But if you understand the physics behind it, then it is easy to understand the difference I make. So you understand the difference, but you refuse to acknowledge it, even if somebody asks you directly (as the OP did). PS In 2011 they obviously did a much better job:

From one of my postings above: So the question is: are you not able to see this distinction, or do you simply refuse it? (Because you are attached to the meanings of words?) It seems to me that you just refuse: what I say is nuts, you do not accept it, is frustrating, and, yes, you really said it: I know a little about it, and nothing in the physical and physiological aspects of how species see gives you any argument that one cannot make this distinction. From an evolutionary point of view it is also clear. From primitive organisms that only detect light, we as higher animals can use the light to recognise objects around us. Our brain is completely trimmed on this. We immediately recognise objects around us (food, or dangerous animals; nowadays cars, and tables etc). It is impossible for us not to see objects around us (if there is enough light to see them). Then you must learn the physical difference between light and macro objects. The difference is based on the physical fact that you can see macro objects by shining light on it, which you cannot do with a light beam that passes in front of you. It does constrain you when weighing the pro- and contra-arguments for a position as objective as possible. And that is what I am trying to do here. This is a picture I made many years ago in the city of Utrecht. Lasers were pointed at the Dom tower. Do you think this picture would have been better if I had made it at day light? Why not?

Hi Koti, I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand. I only feel a huge resistance against splitting the meaning of seeing in 2 slightly different ones, whereby both together encompass the daily meaning of 'seeing'. I am 100% sure that you (and John) understand the physics on which my distinction is based. I do not plead that we from now on must say that light is invisible. I do plead to understand that there is a tiny difference in the meanings of 'to see' between seeing macro objects and light. (Again, I also do not say you should from now on always be fully conscious of these different meanings.) What I do say is that if you reduce the meaning of 'to see' to one of these meanings you per definition cannot see something in the other sense. Say I redefine the word 'car' as 'cup of tea'. Then I can drink a car. So I can build the simple sentence: If we define 'a car' as 'a cup of tea' then I can drink a car. This sentence is true Just as this negative: If we define 'a car' as 'a cup of tea' then I cannot drive home with it. And now try this one again: If we define 'seeing' as 'seeing by reflected light', then we cannot see light, because light does not reflect light. That is all. Nothing more is happening here. The only relevance is when somebody explicitly asks how people could possibly say that light is invisible. After dealing with this semantics exercise, one can immediately follow up by saying that it is a very artificial way of defining 'to see' and that, if one does this, one must say that light is invisible. And some of you already referred to the difference between visible and invisible light (infra red, e.g.), which would be a funny difference if all light were invisible. So better stick to the normal definition of 'to see', where you can see cars and light.

This was dealt with by Strange: it is a crackpot article. See my disclaimer. There are philosophical groundstones of sciences, but it definitely is not true that therefore science is a subfield of philosophy. And most scientists fare pretty well without thinking about these groundstones. The demarcation problem is the problem of distinguishing science from pseudo-science, not of science and philosophy. Problem solving is also an important field of puzzles. And most philosopher are not even capable of solving the problems of e.g. physicists. The mathematics is way too complicated.

What is not true? To reformulate the OP as a statement instead of a question: If we define seeing as 'seeing by reflected light', then we cannot see light, because light does not reflect light. And that is a true sentence. You might object that we usually do not define seeing like that, but that does not make the 'if'-sentence as a whole false. Again: that is not the distinction I make with 'see1' and 'see2'. Both are covered by 'see1': See1: seeing macro objects because they reflect or emit light Koti said: See1 = See2. So build a logical argument. Let's take the definitions again: See1: seeing macro objects because they reflect or emit light (e.g. cars and computer monitors) See2: seeing light because it enters the eye. Then the logical argument goes as follows: We see1 cars (according definition) See1 = See2 (Koti's proposition) We See2 cars (substitute see1 with see2) Plug in the definition of see2 We see cars because they enter the eye. That is wrong of course. But it follows from the definitions of see1 and see2, together with Koti's proposition. If Koti does not acknowledge the difference between see1 and see2, he at most can argue that we cannot distinguish between how we see macro objects and how we see light. But that is pertinently false. We can make the distinction, based on plain physics, if we want. But not wanting to do that is not the same as not being able to make the distinction. @Migl and StringJunky: thanks for your support.

Of course. The difference between see1 and see2 is based on physics. Things do not fall because we have a word for it. They fall because of physics, and because we clearly see the difference between an object lying on a table, it made sense to have a word to describe falling. Having different words for seeing macro objects and for seeing light is of nearly no interest, but one can make the distinction, if one wishes. I find it disappointing, that you cannot leave, at least temporary, your own frame of thought, get to know another one, and only then evaluate, based on arguments, what you think is the best position. Just to show I am not the only one. Is this comment nuts too?

Please read the OP, and just try to think what he could possibly have meant. Do not yet think he is right or not, but what could be the reason he asks such a question. He more or less gives it away himself: "We all know that we see objects because they reflect light into our eyes." Now by reducing the meaning of seeing to 'seeing objects because of reflected light', he can conclude that we do not see light, because light does not reflect light. Just taste it first. Now I see this distinction, and tried to make it explicit by defining: See1: seeing macro objects because they reflect or emit light (e.g. cars and computer monitors) See2: seeing light because it enters the eye. So it is not the distinction between reflected or emitted light, as you think that I think. My distinction is based on the observation that one cannot see a light beam that is passing close by you, and shining light on it does not help in seeing it: it must enter your eye (and then you do not see a light beam, but a light spot). The complete visual system always tries to construct an image of a thing, i.e. a macro object. If just plain light enters the eye, it still tries to see what macro object it is that it sees. The worst that can happen is that you cannot identify it at all, and you see only a bright, blurry spot. So in my opinion, with this little philosophical instrumentarium, we can answer the OP clearly: If you only define 'see1' as seeing, then you are right: then light is invisible. On the other side, it is very artificial to say that light is invisible. So I personally would also include 'see2' in the normal meaning of 'seeing': and then light is visible. Why would this not be a satisfactory reaction?

This is what you said: What you were describing ('you see only light') fits to my description of 'see2'. With that 'only' you exclude 'see1'. I put it in your mouth ('Then you must conclude...'), not in mine. I would never agree with your statement that we only see light. Usually I see all kind of things, thanks to their reflection. I see cups on my desk, which I see of course too, my computer screens (OK, these emit light), outside I see cars. If you say we only see light, i.e. 'seeing light' is the only correct use of 'seeing', then you should say I am wrong when I describe my environment, and I should use another word instead of 'seeing', e.g. 'observe by visually means'. But that would be a bit weird, isn't it? And we had the problem of the 'perfect black dog'. As it neither reflects, nor emits light, one had to say one does not see this dog. Which makes no sense too. Started posting before I saw yours. Yep, that is exactly what is going on.

I did not do that. I distinguished two different meanings, repeatedly saying that in daily use this distinction plays no role. But of course, when somebody reduces the meaning of 'seeing' to only one of these two meanings, he necessarily leaves out the other. That is e.g. what the OP did. Nowhere I said that saying 'I see light' is wrong. But what I did say is that 'I see1 light' is wrong, because we do not see light because it reflects light.

Yes, you did: See1 = See2. I think the only argument against my distinction is that it is practically useless. That's fine. But it does not really help to answer the OP. Do you think we disagree on semantics or on physical processes? When it is semantics, how would you flesh out these semantic differences?

Explain why this would be a strawman. You use my definitions. How else should I understand this? That is not the same, that is a pleonasm. Something like 'it costs expensive': one should say 'It is expensive' or 'it costs much'. Yep.

This is what Koti said: These are my definitions. And see2 means 'seeing because it enters the eye', which of course is only valid for light. So it is not a strawman at all: it is a conclusion following from the definitions of see1 and see2 and Koti's proposition that these are the same. Thank you. But saying of two things they are the same (or not) is always under a point of view. The point of view here is how we see things. We see cars because they reflect light, and we see light because it enters the eye. That is the difference this thread is about. Just the OP. Nothing more. You can google yourself. You will find some similar questions and reactions. Well, yes, more or less. But the OP noticed a difference between how we see light and how we see macro objects. That only two answers are possible, does not necessarily mean that the question is easy. And many posters here answered with 'it is a question of semantics', or 'depends on how you define seeing' (not just me!) So even if a question has yes/no character, it does not mean that one of these answers suffices. To give a terrible example: 'do humans have free will?' It is a yes/no question, but discussions about it are furious. Still appearing books and articles about it. And the answer might in the first place be the same as here: 'it is a question of semantics', or 'depends how you define free will'. Examples:

I am not trying to to convey a new definition. I try to clarify the question of the OP.

Why? I don't think so. The answer of course is 'no'. But light you see when it enters your eye.

If you want. You see a car because it enters your eye? I see.

True. Seldom, but true. But if you know in advance that an empirical test will be impossible, then it makes really no sense anymore. Then it becomes a pure question of opinion. You can tell why you think that heaven is as you think, it could even be a rational discussion (i.e. you give arguments for your opinion), but it would never be scientific, because the absolute touchstone is missing: empirical reality.

I agree with that. But I only fleshed out that there is a physical difference between seeing macro objects and seeing light. For the first I need light (by reflection or by the macro object emitting light itself), for the second other light is not useful to see it, and light also does not emit light. Both processes are described by the same word 'seeing'. So the meanings are there, in the daily use of the word. I did not add a completely new meaning. I just made an artificial distinction between these two meanings. In this light it is possible to understand and react on the OP. You can be sure, without such questions as in the OP, I never make this distinction. You take the words from my mouth...

No, you can't. 'None-scientific' practically means that scientific methods do not work, otherwise we would have made a science from it.