cladking

No. No experiments because experimental science hadn't been invented yet. The Greeks were successful because they were free and were excellent observers. Yes, they obviously staged observations which is extremely similar to experiment but it misses the mark. Ancient people left numerous clues to how they invented their technology but we don't think as they did. They invented agriculture using a different kind of science that generated a different sort of technology. It is very difficult to see because all our assumptions are wrong and we can't think like they did. We are for all practical purposes a different species than homo sapiens. I call us homo omnisciencis because we are so different even though anatomical differences are slight. Seek the metaphysics and you can find the basis of the technology. I'm not sure of your meaning. I believe all knowledge is "good" and leads to "understanding" which allows "creation". Ancient science would just be another tool we might use; perhaps a very valuable tool. It should at the very least lead to a much better understanding of natural systems and the prediction of outcomes we cause. Sounds interesting. Nothing interests me more than finding ancient knowledge buried in ancient texts or right in plain sight. It's funny how until a few centuries ago everyone believed ancient people were wise and powerful. Somehow they became stinky footed bumpkins today.

"Technology" today is an outgrowth of things seen in lab experiments. The Greeks had no experiments so any technology more complex than the observation that water runs downhill was unlikely for them. If you want to find ancient science you need to look for the source of ancient technology. Unfortunately all your sources appear to be corruptions of original writing so the science would be very difficult to see here. Any science you find will necessarily correspond to ancient technology and ancient knowledge, not to modern experimental science.

No. It's most probably not true. Newton studied the pyramids largely because he thought the builders knew the size of the earth (probably true) and he needed the data to test his theory of gravity. While he never found it he did ironically translate the Emerald Tablets of Hermes from Syriac to English. He was truly a remarkable man. He couldda moved heaven and earth if he had google. 😎

I can't defend the idea "intelligence" exists on earth but the word appears (per Mercer) in the oldest writing known to man; 1701a. To say: Nun has begotten N. on his left hand 1701b. a child; the intelligence of N. is not. 1701c. N. is freed from the evil gods; 1701d. N. is not given to the evil gods. https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt47.htm It appears twice in fact; 411a. N. is disgusted when he licks the emetics which are in the red crown, 411b. (but) he is delighted when their magic is in his belly. 411'c. The dignities of N. shall not be taken from him, 411d. (for) he has swallowed the intelligence of every god. 412a. The lifetime of N. is eternity, its limit is everlastingness While the text dates only to ~2400 BC it is believed by Egyptologists to have been composed many centuries earlier and might even pre-date writing. "Intelligence" may have meant something just a little different to the writers of this work and they certainly used the word "heart" in many instances we'd use the word "head". Some individuals simply think a great deal faster than others and some are more adept at coming up with useful ideas. I should think even animals display and note differences in the speed and importance (accuracy) of "thought".

I don't rebut that. My point is that we don't know everything about anything. This leaves open the possibility that our ignorance is far broader and deeper than anyone can imagine. Even a butterfly can use hot air rising from a fire to gain altitude but that hardly means he "understands" any kind of scientific theory whatsoever. Yes. Additionally to not being able to predict the future due to chaos and subtle effects we obviously don't even know all the fundamental "laws" which govern any event.

To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that but you lost me early. By "not being able to quantify anything at all" I merely meant that no event can occur in which all variables will ever be quantifiable. We quantify conditions or possibilities using as much knowledge as we can. But words and thought are much more events than conditions. Good luck in your work.

If I understand you correctly (I'm not at all sure) then our positions are not so very different. In light in the fact that we essentially exist as individuals by virtue of our ability to recognize patterns then how could it be possible to not have philosophy? So long as we use words to think how could it ever be possible to quantify words? Our primary agreement I think is that we see the quantifiable as the basis of reality but, then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.

I'm a big fan of science as well. It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge. Any philosophy that denies free will or the life, liberty, and happiness.In practice there are always trade-offs but this is politics, not philosophy. Only individuals think or come up with new ideas. Only when an idea becomes theory can it benefit science or people. Of course we do! If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions. There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes. Many scientists believe philosophy is irrelevant (different models). Yes, we explore roots and meaning but most of this exploration is really uncovering language. A perspective from outside of language can not be found easily. Even when we look at something from a new angle or step outside the box we take language with us. In very real ways "I think therefore I am" is the root of science but thought as we know it doesn't exist outside of language. Seen from this angle philosophy becomes navel gazing and science just so much lint. I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature. Logic is logic. It behaves no laws per se but rather just is. Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.

"History warns us that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions" I am not suggesting that real science is wrong about everything or anything. I am merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms. Since all ideas and all progress are individual it is also dependent on models and language for all practical purposes. Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another. Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either. Philosophy falls by the wayside because everyone's understanding is solid, so who needs mere words to ruin the wonderful symmetry found in nature? Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language. We have no roots except our models constructed from our interpretation of the reality disclosed by proper experiment. "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete. I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals is evil.

Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical, and reducible to/by induction, I believe none of this. Just as they believe that these "laws" must underlie all of science and philosophy I believe that the laws are illusory and a laboratory manifestation of the logic which underlies existence itself. Just as they believe observation, experiment, and history all support their beliefs, I believe they are misinterpreting everything and failing to see the role of language in data acquisition from the earliest times through today. I came to Wittgenstein's conclusions largely from another direction but more importantly I found extensive direct evidence that our perspective is not only unique but also highly limiting. "Science", our science, requires few definitions and axioms but all our philosophy at this time require extensive givens and premises. For this reason philosophy often doesn't dovetail with experimental results and state of the art. It is often irrelevant to most scientists who tend to have nuts and bolts philosophys. Nobody cares about why an equation works but when I point out the failings and shortcomings of beliefs in laws of nature or the role of thought and language which underlie these beliefs it is considered off topic. "Philosophy" and applied science have largely failed to keep up with the times and this is largely caused by the failure to build on the work of previous greats. This failure is, I believe, the result of the inability of language to accurately reflect very highly complex inductions or complex thought. It's impossible to build on what isn't properly understood while every listener has a different understanding. Such problems can be redressed but this won't happen so long as we each believe we understand or so long as it is believed that philosophy is irrelevant.

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both were right and both wrong; though the view of the ancients is clearer insofar as they have an acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained. — Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.371-2 I could expand on this statement but, oddly enough, it would all be considered off topic. My point remains that there is good and bad philosophy regardless of whether any part of it is inductive or deductive. It is simply irrelevant that science and/ or philosophy can be "strictly" deductive. There's a whole nother world beyond reductionism and induction but it lies outside of the way people think. It's not necessarily better or worse but it is different and provides a broad spectrum of different perspectives. Wittenstein apparently could see this world and arrived there principally through deduction.

It is the crux of my every argument. There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist. "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats". For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?

I remember when I gave it up as a child. That it was hard was certainly known to me but had little to do with why I quit it. Certainly intuition is orders of magnitude faster and easier though honing that intuition required far more effort than I'd have ever predicted. I gave it all up principally because I realized that none of life's important questions could ever be addressed through science in my lifetime but also because I never wanted to believe something that wasn't true and it's quite apparent that induction can lead straight to such beliefs. I don't believe that any amount of poison that might or might not have been consumed can possibly have any effect at all on the population of felines because there's no such thing as "cats" and the question lies outside my metaphysics. While inductive reasoning has been around for only 4000 years, science has been around for only 400. I am not rejecting "science" but merely the interpretations based on taxonomies. Reality can be seen through experiment though only the narrowest spectra at a time. The real irony here is that I believe we can't see 40,000 years of deduction based science that was supplanted by induction based on taxonomies that led us through many centuries of dark ages and may now be leading us back into a new one. Again though the subject is good and bad philosophy. False taxonomies, bad science, and poor metaphysics can easily drive a bad philosophy; So, too, can beliefs that are not consistent with the point of philosophy; to better humans and to better understand our humanity both collectively and individually. I am holding out certain yardsticks and definitions against which almost any philosophy can be measured and adjudged. All philosophy is not created equally and much of it ruinous to not only the philosopher but to everyone. One can't practice real science by means of any sort of philosophy but I do agree that at this juncture our science is still highly dependent on inductive reasoning. This will remain true until we know a great deal more but in the meantime, I believe it is critically important that we each consider the degree to which our thinking is dependent on definitions and axioms.

I don't like inductive reasoning but that's NOT the point. I don't like it for myself because I don't believe in taxonomies. I wouldn't mind it in others except almost invariably they lose sight of the definitions, axioms, and premises upon which the results depend. But this still isn't my point neither is the fact that many other including the Nacenes believe the Tree of Life is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. My point is merely that "good Philosophy" must be logical and not contradict known fact. It MUST serve man and his needs. It must hold people up as the sole good and all that works against people and individuals as EVIL. Any other philosophy is harmful, unimportant, incorrect or some combination of these. My own philosophy is deductive and presumes the fewest possible axioms and avoids taxonomy and induction. I am excluding "look and See Science" and science by consensus. I am excluding all expert opinion and poorly designed experiment. I am excluding experiment that can be interpreted in ways that don't conform to theory. A great deal of what we call "science" simply is not. Explaining observation is not "science"; interpretation of experiment is. We can define the world as flat if we don't mind the math. Reductionistic science works but it might not be the ONLY science.

The ability to use things seen in nature, the lab, or in the bathtub do not confer understanding. Of course if observation does not conform to theory the cause must be reconciled but when observation does conform to theory it does not mean that theory is correct. If I put bird food out and observe what birds come to feed it is hardly an experiment at all and hardly can say much about what types of birds and animals live here or how they interact. Like all words the referent for "experiment" is a continuum from good solid relevance to hardly experiment at all. Experiment design is one of the hardest parts of science and interpretation of experiment is necessarily dependent on the design and axioms. People and animals have been employing and building counterweights for countless millions of years yet we still don't understand the cause of the gravity that allows them to work. Yes and no. Just because we don't notice an anomalous property or find a way to explain the unexpected; just because we can justify all observation with theory don't mean that the axioms are necessarily the simplest ones to use to understand experiment. Since axioms can't be proven or disproven the task isn't to justify them but rather to select the set which explain experiment in the simplest terms. There are red pills and blue pills just as there are red and blue pills. It's also possible to have a single red and blue pill that some might see as red and others as blue. Any pill, every single individual pill, has many names. Why do you suppose a tree would be known by a single name? People get hung up on ideas that come from language and the models they engender. "Philosophy" is no different at all. Just as "experiment" lies on a continuum so too does "philosophy. We each take many beliefs as being axiomatic and then generate an entire "philosophy" around it. We each see what we expect and believe until in time we become those beliefs, never realizing that every individual has a unique perspective that he believes is justified by experiment, religion, or common sense.

Your definition makes a bee's waggle dance "astronomy". I have no problem at all with this but still would point out that it is more measurement than experiment. A lot of the disagreement is really semantical. Obviously, there are "expermental" qualities to things other than pure experiment. I would go so far as to say there can be such qualities to almost all thought and action (including observation of course). But it is necessary still to tie theory to reality through experiment. It is also necessary to periodically revisit axioms and metaphysics. The only thing that matters is what he meant. He did not specifically say how many trees there were or even that one tree didn't have two names. No! One thing all nonsense and poppycock have shared in the last century is that it had no tie to experiment. I am not claiming ANYTHING not tied to experiment is nonsense but that real science actually works and is tied to experiment. Everything must begin with what is accepted as true. Everything follows from this.

"Physics" is the result of axioms, methodology, and experiment. While interpretations can still be wrong physics is always tied to reality by experiment. This simply isn't true for all branches of study and it's not as true for astronomy. Most of astronomy has far more to do with observation and the explanation of observation derived from experiments on earth rather than doing experiments with stars. It's not a matter of astronomy being "wrong" so much as it's a matter of a near void of experiment conducted by astronomers. If you lose sight of axioms it's easy to lose sight of the meaning of experiment. It's impossible to know the limitations of your knowledge. It won't be today... I believe astrology is a confusion of a science. No. I'm merely saying that models and beliefs are just as dependent on axioms and definitions whether you believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or you believe a Creator made this so. Nobody escapes fundamental beliefs and most individuals vote the same "party" and attend the same church as their parents.

Eise quoted it and claimed it was the King James version. "Axioms" are not "true". There are assumed to be true so the validity of all of science depends upon the accuracy and correctness of its axioms. No. Axioms are fundamental to everything derived from them. Just like beliefs they determine the direction of science and individuals.

In every way... It is what it is and it is the vector sum total of the understanding of every scientist and mathematician who ever added to it. It is the aggregate of the understanding of every living person. It is quantified logic applied to the movement of lights in the sky AND everything that has been learned from it. An individual can approach the study of astronomy very scientifically but then one can approach the study of philosophy very scientifically as well. This makes neither astronomy nor philosophy "science".

Why are you assuming the story never changed before it became writ in stone? A person is both an observer and the observed, an animal and a mammal, good and bad, an individual and half a couple I could go on all day. Maybe the author of Genesis didn't think like you do. No. An axiom is something that is assumed to be true because it is fundamental and not subject to experimentation or other scientific process. Math is quantified logic and is in no way "science". Neither history nor literature are in any way science but they are founded in philosophy and philosophy should be reflective of science or we'll have warped and twisted understanding of them. "Astronomy" may be the mother of science but is not strictly science herself. It is more akin to the application of math and knowledge to understanding the heavens and our place in the universe. Astronomy also makes a very handy place to make observation of phenomena and events that can't occur on earth. You have the cart before the horse here. There's that word "good" again. Some people find happiness or fulfillment in very very bad things. One may need to turn every stone to find good philosophy but one might get dirty in the process.

What I'm trying to say is that good science ("valid" if you prefer) can only yield good philosophy so long as the philosophical axioms are good. "Good philosophical axioms" being that which is beneficial to people". Obviously this might not be true. I'm trying to say that all truth and all knowledge is necessarily good to the species. Philosophy and science can both be bad under the defined conditions stated above. I suppose you're suggesting the fruit was detrimental to people. While this is possible it seems unlikely the tellers or inventors of the story would believe that any kind of knowledge was "bad". We are "Homo Sapiens" (wise men) so why should knowledge be harmful? why would wisdom be harmful? It seems unlikely they invented agriculture and cities with bad philosophy.

...Perhaps the "evil" was in that there was not enough fruit for all and no means to assure equitable distribution. Or the story could be completely fabricated with no referent in the real world. Exactly. There are even more bad sciences than good sciences but every science must have a methodology (metaphysics) to which it strictly adheres. Bad science is science that isn't founded in experiment. I suppose this would be true except for two things. Using reductionism to study nature as we do science necessarily leads philosophy and it's doubtful that real science can fly in the face of what's best for people. A-bombs aren't "science", they are technology and so long as people want to kill each other there is no means to stop any sort of technology. If the goal is to kill then "good" technology kills the most people. I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that "good" must be axiomatic to "philosophy". If a philosophy is created that not based in science or not based in "good" axioms then the result will be a set of beliefs that is destructive. In order to come to this conclusion one must ponder bad science and bad philosophy or see where they have created chaos before. In this case I think the difference is science and technology. It is also often called the "Tree of Life" because life is the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps the "Life" was believed to have been extended sufficiently to gain such wisdom. Or it might all be mere fabrication but if it's made up then one should ask why it was invented.

I don't want to play word games here but "philosophy" means "love of wisdom" and "wisdom" mean knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, or what is practical from what is not. More to the point there is no gain in pondering things that are bad to the species, individuals, or the commonweal. The sole objective has always been the betterment of the race and historically we find that in truth and reality rather than belief and superstition. If there were good results in bad philosophy or bad science it would be better not to known anyway. I think if we let real science work itself out we'll always find ways that the new knowledge can be used for progress rather than destruction.

The latter. The real problem with all philosophy is that any tenet, any reasoning, and every conclusion can be deconstructed. Even some of what is often called "science" suffers this same fault. "Philosophy" by definition must hold life, and especially human life, as the ultimate good or it is destructive. If that life is worthless or of negative value is an axiom then any philosophy can be "good" philosophy". Things that help a single individual or group but is bad for the commonweal are bad. Death is a part of life so the prevention of death can not possibly be the ultimate good. Just as good mayonnaise requires that you break a few eggs, good philosophy is no stranger to egg shells.