Philosophy, Science & Reality

[Itoero]

And how do you decide which interpretation or speculation is correct or wrong?

[studiot]

Please excuse my philosophical knowledge in the past weeks in this forum. This forum helps me clarify what is philosophy. This enables me now to share my idea about philosophy. Philosophy as what someone said here, is neither correct nor wrong. But my idea is that, there are correct & wrong philosophies. Example of correct philosophy I want to assert is Universalism and example of wrong philosophy is Relativism. Let me explain why the first is correct contrary to the last mentioned philosophy. Universalism is correct because base on my understanding, there is what we call absolute truth of reality.According to wikipedia, when we say absolute truth, this is the truth which is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. Examples of this absolute truth are mathematics, natural rights etc.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that philosophy is important because it seeks the absolute truth provided that we speculate soundly, interpret facts properly and so we have the correct philosophy.IMO, some philosophies are wrong because some philosophers wrongly speculate and interpret facts.

 

 

I think the pit you have dug for yourself in this thread is due to your constant assumption the right and wrong / correct and incorrect / true and false / provable and unprovable are all binary choices in Philosophy.

 

They are not.

The whole thrust of most philosophies (and there are many) is that most, if not all, observations and assessments belong on a sliding scale.

Almost nothing is black or white, shades of grey prevail.

 

As a for instance take your assertion above that absolute truth is valid in all times and places and that a good example of this is mathematics.

 

Seems clear enough doesn't it?

 

And yet there are huge branches of mathematics devoted to the difference between 'local' and 'global' properties of particular mathematical objects, wherein some property may hold locally, but not globally.

Yet more telling is that much of this mathematics is vitally important to modern technology.

[Strange]

Example of correct philosophy I want to assert is Universalism and example of wrong philosophy is Relativism. Let me explain why the first is correct contrary to the last mentioned philosophy. Universalism is correct because base on my understanding, there is what we call absolute truth of reality.According to wikipedia, when we say absolute truth, this is the truth which is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. Examples of this absolute truth are mathematics, natural rights etc.

 

 

And according to my understanding, there is no absolute truth. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Natural rights are a human invention and vary from place to place and from time to time.

 

(I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence and logic as you, therefore my position must be just as correct as yours. Therefore philosophy cannot be used to prove an argument correct. Only evidence, in other words science, can do that.)

[Randolpin]

And according to my understanding, there is no absolute truth. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Natural rights are a human invention and vary from place to place and from time to time.

 

 

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples. Another example is our surroundings. Do you think that it just your own subjective view that the moon is round and other see it as square. Obviously not. All of us see the shape, the structure of the world the same way. Therefore there is absolute truth or objective truth. The truth which is valid in all times and all places. The moon is round for you, for me and for all humans who see it. The moon is round in Asia, Europe,Americas etc. for those who see it. Therefore, there is an absolute truth. In this case, we can't apply the philosophy of relativism because obviously it is not compatible.

 

In this idea, we see that base on facts or evidences in the surroundings, we see that, really, there are correct and incorrect philosophies.

[Mordred]

look closer at the quantum level the moon may no longer be round. Don't let the limits of human senses fool you. What we percieve as reality is based upon our interpretation of signals. So how can we know for sure our senses is telling us the truth? We don't

 

For example what we percieve as solid or matter isn't what the research and science shows. The individual particles (fermions) that make up matter has no corpuscular make up. Literally being described as a field excitation with no solidity structure. Example the electron has no internal structure.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

 

That is in the quantum scale which is the scale of the small. Our lives are inclined and perceive the large scale (Universe, galaxies).For me, I think we should not apply what is in the quantum level to the activities in large scale because they are different. The fact that quantum mechanics is different from large scale doesn't remove the absolute truth that exist in the large scale because we ourselves experience it.

 

Even if we consider that q.m eliminates absolute truth, there is still absolute truth. The absolute truth of quantum mechanics itself. Me, you, all of us perceive that q.m is uncertain and very different from classical mechanics.

[Mordred]

What is absolute truth, ignoring evidence at one scale ?

 

That's not truth, nor is it a path to what you call absolute truth, whatever that may mean. How we describe reality relies upon the evidence we gather at every size scale. Not just the macro or quantum but both.

 

What we describe as truth or reality is an interpretation to the best of our understanding nothing more. Further research may lead to an entirely new interpretation.

 

Absolute truth would require omniscience (all knowing) can we possibly claim such knowledge ? or ever be able to do so? I think not. Nor is it reasonable to ever claim such knowledge.

 

Any claims of absolute truth in itself is a lie...

Edited June 3, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples.

 

You give one example of a system within which formal propositions can be defined to be true. Not really applicable to anything outside mathematics.

 

You give a second example which is pure opinion.

 

 

 

Do you think that it just your own subjective view that the moon is round and other see it as square. Obviously not. All of us see the shape, the structure of the world the same way.

 

Even if everyone sees the moon as round (for one day a month) that does not mean that all truths are absolute. So it cannot be used as an argument for universalism. Definitions of beauty are not universally agreed. Not all moral and ethical choices are universal. Some people like jazz and others hate it. People disagree on what is right or wrong. Different countries have different definitions of "natural" rights.

[Itoero]

Mathematics concerns artificial truth...2+2 equals 4 because we say it equals 4. We create the truth.

Every science is in a sense 100% artificial

[studiot]

 

Randolphin

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples.

 

I did look at your examples and you totally ignored me,

 

This was despite your replying to others, who were not actually addressing what your wrote.

 

Fir the record most (including some of your posts which makes things confusing) replies seem to address the statement you did not make

 

viz "Every truth is absolute".

 

What you actually claimed was there is such a thing as absolute truth, and even gave a definition.

 

It was that definition that is not matched by your example, given in the same paragraph,that I have challenged.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

If we put a definition to PHILOSOPHY ,

Then we have given philosophy boundaries to which it may not be allowed to go ! or lines it may not cross!

 

In so doing we have destroyed the very endeavour we have in PHILOSOPHY . Namely the sphere of human endeavour to think and discuss openly both the norms and the extremes of human thought and discussion FREELY and without SHACKLES .

 

Surely PHILOSOPHY is the last bastion of human contemplation , exploration , discussion , and freedom !

 

Without fear of ..... Any comeback ? or Anything ?

 

 

Mike

Edited June 4, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[studiot]

Mike, you have actually made a clear and cogent point that I can understand.

 

And a good point it is too.

 

+1

[Randolpin]

You give one example of a system within which formal propositions can be defined to be true. Not really applicable to anything outside mathematics.

 

 

Why do you say that mathematical propositions are not applicable outside math? We all know that math is necessary in understanding reality like how it is being use in General Relativity. Math according to a philosopher is the language of nature.

You give a second example which is pure opinion.

 

 

That is not an opinion. It is according to wikipedia and it is true. Example of natural right is our right to live. Our right to be happy. Our right to clothing, shelter, food etc. And many more.

 

 

Definitions of beauty are not universally agreed. Not all moral and ethical choices are universal. Some people like jazz and others hate it. People disagree on what is right or wrong. Different countries have different definitions of "natural" rights.

I in some point agree with these. But that doesn't eliminate the idea that there are absololute truths.

 

 

viz "Every truth is absolute."

That is not the statement I made. What I mean is that there is absolute truth of reality. I didn't mean that every truth is absolute. Edited June 4, 2017 by Randolpin

[studiot]

 

Randolphin post#63

That is not the statement I made. What I mean is that there is absolute truth of reality. I didn't mean that every truth is absolute.

 

I know that.

That is why I said that you did not say it.

 

It is also why I did not accuse you of it, or contradict you.

 

What I think you mean is that some truths are absolute.

 

In which case one counter example is insufficient.

 

But I did observe that you chose a poor example in mathematics since it is not about about 'absolute truths.

 

And I gave an example of the mathematics of where the truth varies according to the conditions.

 

It would be really nice if you could be bothered to acknowledge my posts properly and accurately, especially as they seem to be the only ones offering you any support.

Edited June 4, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

Why do you say that mathematical propositions are not applicable outside math?

 

 

I didn't say that.

 

 

 

That is not an opinion. It is according to wikipedia and it is true. Example of natural right is our right to live. Our right to be happy. Our right to clothing, shelter, food etc. And many more.

 

But people disagree about these. There is no absolute definition of these. Some people do not think that murderers have a right to life. Some people think that certain social groups do not have the same rights as everyone else.

 

 

 

What I mean is that there is absolute truth of reality. I didn't mean that every truth is absolute.

 

You tried to use the fact that there are some absolute truths to claim that therefore relativism is wrong.

 

You are now saying that there are some absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute. Therefore relativism is correct.

 

See, a good philosophical argument s one that can change your mind! Well done.

[Itoero]

.

 

If we put a definition to PHILOSOPHY ,

Then we have given philosophy boundaries to which it may not be allowed to go ! or lines it may not cross!

 

In so doing we have destroyed the very endeavour we have in PHILOSOPHY . Namely the sphere of human endeavour to think and discuss openly both the norms and the extremes of human thought and discussion FREELY and without SHACKLES .

 

Surely PHILOSOPHY is the last bastion of human contemplation , exploration , discussion , and freedom !

 

Without fear of ..... Any comeback ? or Anything ?

 

image.jpeg

 

Mike

" The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy

 

Which boundaries do you see in that definition?

[EdEarl]

Wikipedia: Scientific Method

 

Under the scientific method as conceived in the 17th century, natural and artificial circumstances were set aside as a research tradition of systematic experimentation was slowly accepted by the scientific community. The philosophy of using an inductive approach to obtain knowledge — to abandon assumption and to attempt to observe with an open mind — was in contrast with the earlier, Aristotelian approach of deduction, by which analysis of known facts produced further understanding. In practice, many scientists and philosophers believed that a healthy mix of both was needed — the willingness to question assumptions, yet also to interpret observations assumed to have some degree of validity.

 

By the end of the scientific revolution the qualitative world of book-reading philosophers had been changed into a mechanical, mathematical world to be known through experimental research. Though it is certainly not true that Newtonian science was like modern science in all respects, it conceptually resembled ours in many ways. Many of the hallmarks of modern science, especially with regard to its institutionalization and professionalization, did not become standard until the mid-19th century.

The scientific method resulted in all the technological toys and tools used today; these developments span about 500 years of recent human history. Philosophy without science existed for millennium without understanding much about us or our environment; philosophy alone can be inept. Similarly, science is inept without data.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

" The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning."http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophyWhich boundaries do you see in that definition?

.

 

Well some individuals could argue what they define constitutes nature

 

( eg 'this' ! , but not 'that ' )

( which causes what ? )

( what principle of reality applies here ? )

( what logic , principles , values of reality , is used for such and such ? )

 

 

All these put down boundaries which ' Could ' restrict philosophical thought or discussion ?

Limit research regions or areas of discussion ? And hense future possible descovery ?

 

With philosophy surely we must sometimes , Think and discuss ' Outside the Box ' not all the time , but it is sometimes necessary . Not always , or we would never get anywhere . But sometimes it can allow for new development of new ideas , Is that not so ? If we did/do take a limited approach , we could ' ban ' for all time an area of philosophical understanding or later discovery ?

 

Surely ?

 

Mike

Edited June 5, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

.

 

Well some individuals could argue what they define constitutes nature

 

( eg 'this' ! , but not 'that ' )

( which causes what ? )

( what principle of reality applies here ? )

( what logic , principles , values of reality , is used for such and such ? )

 

 

All these put down boundaries which ' Could ' restrict philosophical thought or discussion ?

Limit research regions or areas of discussion ? And hense future possible descovery ?

 

With philosophy surely we must sometimes , Think and discuss ' Outside the Box ' not all the time , but it is sometimes necessary . Not always , or we would never get anywhere . But sometimes it can allow for new development of new ideas , Is that not so ? If we did/do take a limited approach , we could ' ban ' for all time an area of philosophical understanding or later discovery ?

 

Surely ?

 

Mike

 

 

Is anyone saying there are limits to philosophy? Philosophers have considered pretty much everything in the past, and will continue to do in future.

[Eise]

If we put a definition to PHILOSOPHY ,

Then we have given philosophy boundaries to which it may not be allowed to go ! or lines it may not cross!

 

In so doing we have destroyed the very endeavour we have in PHILOSOPHY . Namely the sphere of human endeavour to think and discuss openly both the norms and the extremes of human thought and discussion FREELY and without SHACKLES .

 

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say.

 

See here for what philosophy's task is.

[Itoero]

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say.

 

See here for what philosophy's task is.

"scientifically established facts" are very relative. There is no evidence for the absence of supernaturally.

[Randolpin]

 

You tried to use the fact that there are some absolute truths to claim that therefore relativism is wrong.

 

You are now saying that there are some absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute. Therefore relativism is correct.

 

See, a good philosophical argument s one that can change your mind! Well done.

I agree with that. But what I really mean is that the definition of philosophy which is " neither correct nor incorrect" is quite mistaken. For example we know that there are some absolute truths. It is true. We also know that there are relative truths. And it is true. So we can conclude that there are really absolute truths and relative truths of reality. Since it is real so philosophy is always correct. And also philosophy is always correct as long as it is being formulated soundly which is logic based and based on proper reasoning base also on established facts to avoid incorrect philosophies.

The scientific method resulted in all the technological toys and tools used today; these developments span about 500 years of recent human history. Philosophy without science existed for millennium without understanding much about us or our environment; philosophy alone can be inept. Similarly, science is inept without data.

 

Did you mean that philosophy needs established facts? If yes then I agree with you.

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say.

 

 

Therefore, for me I think that to avoid incorrect philosophy, we should philosophize soundly. In order to philosophize soundly it should be:

1. Logic based

2. Base on established facts ( facts proven by science)

[EdEarl]

Did you mean that philosophy needs established facts? If yes then I agree with you.

Example: The ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, looked around and decided the elements were earth, air, water and fire, which people believed until after the scientific revolution. No progress was made for over a thousand years, because philosophy without science is inept for some issues, including the quest for knowledge about the elements. On the other hand, "Cogito ergo sum," is an example of pure philosophy that may never be improved by science, which seems to be inept on this issue.

 

"Did you mean that philosophy needs established facts?" I don't know. Did the Greeks have facts to conclude the elements were Earth, Air, Water and Fire? I think Cogito ergo sum is based on facts.

[Strange]

I agree with that. But what I really mean is that the definition of philosophy which is " neither correct nor incorrect" is quite mistaken. For example we know that there are some absolute truths. It is true. We also know that there are relative truths. And it is true. So we can conclude that there are really absolute truths and relative truths of reality. Since it is real so philosophy is always correct.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

1. There is no apparent connection between the existence of truths (whether absolute or relative) and a philosophical argument being correct or not.

 

2. If there were such a connection, then how could the existence of relative truths guarantee correctness, when different people will disagree on what is true or not.

 

3. Some philosophers argue that god exists other argue that god does not exist. According to you, because philosophy is always correct, they are both correct. But this violates a fundamental law of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

I think Cogito ergo sum is based on facts.

 

It is a fundamental flawed argument, but it is hard to say if that is because it is not based on facts.

 

I think an insistence that philosophy should rely on "facts" is naive and limiting. A large part of philosophy is about analysing problems and asking questions. For example, thinking about "what is a fact" is an important and complex question that would need to be thought about before one could insist that philosophy should be based on them.

[Randolpin]

That doesn't make sense.

 

1. There is no apparent connection between the existence of truths (whether absolute or relative) and a philosophical argument being correct or not.

 

2. If there were such a connection, then how could the existence of relative truths guarantee correctness, when different people will disagree on what is true or not.

 

3. Some philosophers argue that god exists other argue that god does not exist. According to you, because philosophy is always correct, they are both correct. But this violates a fundamental law of logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

 

 

No. I mean is that there are absolute truths and also relative truths. They are not contradicted with each other but they exist independently.