beecee

As it appears you are...making liberal uses of rhetorical devices that is. And certainly doesn't make it any less a valid statement.

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance". George Bernard Shaw: And may I add, as is false Philosophy.

"Science is piecemeal revelation". Oliver Wendell Holmes 1 (1809-94) U. S. poet, essayist, physician. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein: "Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one". Konrad (Zacharias) Lorenz (1903-89) Austrian ethologist. [Nobel prize for medicine, 1973] "There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil" Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician. "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists". Richard Feynman Stop being so obtuse. It was knowledge at the time. Until science and Copernicus/Galileo. The earth was for all intents and purposes certainly flat, for billions of people. That was there knowledge [false as we now know it] and poor philosophy. We now know that it was false knowledge.

makes sense to Professor Cleverstein and to the millions under control of the church and the Ptolomy regime It was knowledge at the time in every sense of the word, as guided by the church and its philosophical overlords.

You failed to answer the "knowledge" of Ptolomy I mentioned a while back. Remember, knowledge evolves, based on science and the scientific methodology. It makes sense to Smith.

Another point I will make, is that in this day and age, at least in my opinion, philosophy is more closely tied with religion then science.......science is undoubtedly the ultimate tool for understanding the physical universe around us, from the largest stars and galaxies, to the extreme distances of the observable universe, down to the realm of quantum/Planck interactions. Religion on the other hand inherits the uncertainty of faith and the unanswerable philosophical questions that then arise. Another similarity with religion/religious people. as distinct from science and the scientific method and theories, is that the questions both ask are alike... What is the meaning of good? What does it mean to live a good life? What is the nature of [wait for it 😉] truth/reality? Why are we here? What is the universe? How should we treat each other? etc etc etc etc Thank Christ! I thought there was something wrong with my uncouth methodology and understanding!!! 😛

The point "IS" of course, that my position is clearly stated, and you seem to be dodging around, or simply missing what I have said. It does get rather frustrating. Perhaps you are practising your philosophy on me?

And I reiterate....We keep discovering new knowledge, that enables us to get closer to any of your supposed truth and/or reality...They may even get there one day, or simply continue with better models and theories that still fall short of your supposed truth and/or reality. No one has ever said it applies exclusively!!! And to answer the last one first, we know the theory of evolution is fact...no scientist worth his salt denies that...most lay people see it as fact also. Scientists know Abiogeneis is fact, despite not yet knowing the exact pathway or methodology. [1] Dunno [2]true. [3] True [4] True [5] True So well done for your well thought examples, although it does nothing to invalidate exactly what I have said. 🙄 Now I believe this is off topic, so raise your points in the gravity thread, where it appears against all the evidence so far and expert comments, you still have doubts...or an agenda.

Of course we don't in many cases know where the truth/reality [if it exists] lies. Pretty much what I said and meant here, and in the "gravity"thread.... The point is, in context, and as discussed in the gravity thread...Scientific theories and models, are not out to determine X, if X even exists. But as VAT also says, we may still reach it [X] accidently. Our models only need to be useful and predict successfully as Newtonian mechanics and GR already do.

Or if you like, we could call it the evolution of knowledge. We have an estimated age along with stated error bars, based on current knowledge and data. Like most scientific models/theories, they may change in the future. That's science, that's the scientific method. A shame you seem so intent on ignoring that.

Ptolemy also had "supposed" knowledge of the universe that stood for millenia. There is of course also "false knowledge" We keep discovering new knowledge, that enables us to get closer to any of your supposed truth and/or reality...They may even get there one day, or simply continue with better models and theories that still fall short of your supposed truth and/or reality. Again I recommend you read Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing"

Not a very good one? If that was the case, I suggest they may be extinct by now. The Emu is another...different types of birds, those that fly, those that don't those that hunt, those that don't....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley Priestley's determination to defend phlogiston theory and to reject what would become the chemical revolution eventually left him isolated within the scientific community. That of course stands as overwhelmingly shown in that thread. How can you say that as science gains knowledge it is falseifying the fact that science does not necessarily describe reality? You have lost me. In actual fact though, what I did say was that the object of scientific theories and models, was not this undedfined truth and/or reality you seem so fixated with, but that if by chance that should be discovered or realized, accidently or otherwise, then all well and good. But hey! we have a thread on that if you want to keep philosophising on that matter.

And Newton went to his death bed with his model. Again,what you fail to comprehend is that science is a discipline in eternal progress...you know, the next generation standing on the shoulders of the preceeding one, add infinitum. Of course in other times, religion rearing its ugly head, stifled some of that progress...albeit for a short time. Thanks for that. Not bad for an old fart that is! 😜 Of course....It's just a shame, that so many philosophers are so thin skinned. Krauss at least imo, did not deserve the criticism he received, and as I showed other physicists also expressed the same or similar...Degrasse Tyson and the late Stephen Hawking. Everyone of them recognise that philosophy has laid the ground work and foundations for science and physics, but as our knowledge of the universe has increased, as our 'scopes have peered further and further into the universe and our observational data has increased, theoretical physicists, have over-lapped, and in many circumstances over-taken the philsophical concepts. Theoretical physicists of course lay the ground work for the practical physicist. This is all Krauss, Hawking and Degrasse-Tyson, and probably many more are expressing or would like to express.

Yes you did.....

*cough cough* Do they need to throw a party? You fail to consider that science is a discipline in eternal progress. If any physicist or scientists's life's work is superceded by a new progressive theory, he or she accomadates that new theory/model or advancement in knowledge. If he didn't, he would be a fossil. Hostile? Sometimes its the other way round, particularly when philosophers are faced with some cold hard truths. Perhaps you need to read Krauss's book.

Professor Krauss 's words not mine. 😉

Here are some questions asked fo Professor Krauss just after a memorial service for Christopher Hitchens....... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ Andersen: I want to start with a general question about the relationship between philosophy and physics. There has been a fair amount of sniping between these two disciplines over the past few years. Why the sudden, public antagonism between philosophy and physics? Krauss: That's a good question. I expect it's because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then "natural philosophy" became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers. This sense that somehow physicists, because they can't spell the word "philosophy," aren't justified in talking about these things, or haven't thought deeply about them— Andersen: Is that really a claim that you see often? Krauss: It is. Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't. Andersen: On that note, you were recently quoted as saying that philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years." But computer science, particularly research into artificial intelligence was to a large degree built on foundational work done by philosophers in logic and other formal languages. And certainly philosophers like John Rawls have been immensely influential in fields like political science and public policy. Do you view those as legitimate achievements? Krauss: Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention. There are areas of philosophy that are important, but I think of them as being subsumed by other fields. In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature or logic, which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very mathematical, but what they're really doing is mathematics—it's not talking about things that have affected computer science, it's mathematical logic. And again, I think of the interesting work in philosophy as being subsumed by other disciplines like history, literature, and to some extent political science insofar as ethics can be said to fall under that heading. To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas. Andersen: I'm not sure that's right. I think that in some cases philosophy actually generates new fields. Computer science is a perfect example. Certainly philosophical work in logic can be said to have been subsumed by computer science, but subsumed might be the wrong word— Krauss: Well, you name me the philosophers that did key work for computer science; I think of John Von Neumann and other mathematicians, and— Andersen: But Bertrand Russell paved the way for Von Neumann. Krauss: But Bertrand Russell was a mathematician. I mean, he was a philosopher too and he was interested in the philosophical foundations of mathematics, but by the way, when he wrote about the philosophical foundations of mathematics, what did he do? He got it wrong. Andersen: But Einstein got it wrong, too— Krauss: Sure, but the difference is that scientists are really happy when they get it wrong, because it means that there's more to learn. And look, one can play semantic games, but I think that if you look at the people whose work really pushed the computer revolution from Turing to Von Neumann and, you're right, Bertrand Russell in some general way, I think you'll find it's the mathematicians who had the big impact. And logic can certainly be claimed to be a part of philosophy, but to me the content of logic is mathematical. Andersen: I'm not sure that's right. I think that in some cases philosophy actually generates new fields. Computer science is a perfect example. Certainly philosophical work in logic can be said to have been subsumed by computer science, but subsumed might be the wrong word— Krauss: Well, you name me the philosophers that did key work for computer science; I think of John Von Neumann and other mathematicians, and— Andersen: But Bertrand Russell paved the way for Von Neumann. Krauss: But Bertrand Russell was a mathematician. I mean, he was a philosopher too and he was interested in the philosophical foundations of mathematics, but by the way, when he wrote about the philosophical foundations of mathematics, what did he do? He got it wrong. Andersen: But Einstein got it wrong, too— Krauss: Sure, but the difference is that scientists are really happy when they get it wrong, because it means that there's more to learn. And look, one can play semantic games, but I think that if you look at the people whose work really pushed the computer revolution from Turing to Von Neumann and, you're right, Bertrand Russell in some general way, I think you'll find it's the mathematicians who had the big impact. And logic can certainly be claimed to be a part of philosophy, but to me the content of logic is mathematical. more.................... 84% of the worlds's population have faith...including my Mrs. I prefer the empirical scientific methodology and reason. The fact that 84% of the world's population, claim they are chrisitian or jew or whatever [including me unless the Pope has excommunicated me 🤣] does not detract from the fact that science/cosmology is able to explain how the elements, planets, stars, and life came to be, without any reference to myth and/or supernatural entities.

Perhaps in the same way that science has [to any reasonable thinking person supported by evidence] pushed religion back to near oblivion, [well at least to t+10-45 seconds] and its factual account of evolution of life.

New one on me also! Another is the "Vector 4 Gravity" model by Carver Mead, and fervently pushed by an old mate of mine from another forum. This from what I understand makes the same predictions and matches the same observations as GR, except in relation to a small aspect re polarisation? https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw181.html LIGO and LIGO+Virgo have now detected about a dozen gravitational wave events. Their observed polarization characteristics shy locations are consistent with Einstein's GR but not with Mead's G4v. Nice try, Carver.

Bingo! I'm with Lawrence Krauss' recent critique of philosophy, which had the philosophers strangely jumping up and down in dismay. Sure philosophy laid the groundwork for science, and a moral society for that matter, but science has now developed to a stage where many theoretical physics questions, have overtaken the philosophy of science/physics questions. What's the difference I hear you ask? philosophical questions are just that...questions asked and pondered without any application of maths or the existing technicalities of the subject. Theoretical physics on the other hand, is based on previous knowledge and know how, plus the use of mathematics and whatever observational and experimental data is at hand.eg: Krauss' book, "A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING"....Why many philosophers started jumping up and down, is hard to understand in reality, as he certainly agreed to philosophy having laid the ground work for the scientific disciplines. In summing, science/physics asks how the universe and life [abiogenesis] works, while philosophy and philosophers ask what is the universe and what is life. As a non scientist and a non physicist, I believe I can speak on this matter without too much bias. The Lawrence Krauss, "storm in a tea cup", seems to have developed because of a comment he mad along the lines of "philosophers are threatened by science because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”. 😊 The late Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have from memory also made similar remarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/08/stephen-hawking-philosophy-maths

Sounds as if they're trying to establish the old American west and Wyatt Earp and the old Tombstone/boot Hill scenario again.

Including philosophers. Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. Bertrand Russell "There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil". Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician. "philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex". Steve Jones: The BB theory of universal evolution of space and time, does have some nagging problems with it; Inflation was speculated to eliminate those nagging problems, and does seem to account for that. While the BB has enough observational evidence to cement it as overwhelmingly supported, we have no evidence for inflation as far as I am aware. That's what Dr Lincoln is conveying. Scientists are actually unaware of the nature of whatever it is that makes the expansion rate of the universe accelerate...Hence the use of the terminology Dark Energy. I recommend you read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing" 😉 "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken.

I have less of a problem with infinity then I do with finite, and edges and flat Earths etc.

😉