Philosophy, Science & Reality

[Strange]

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

 

 

Yes. But that's not the point. The fact that relative truths (differences of opinion) exist means that philosophy cannot always be correct.

[dimreepr]

 

 

Yes. But that's not the point. The fact that relative truths (differences of opinion) exist means that philosophy cannot always be correct.

 

Philosophy is never correct (IMO).

[Strange]

 

Philosophy is never correct (IMO).

 

 

I would say it is not about being correct or not, but about asking questions and analysing the answers. Asking better questions, in other words. That is why it plays an important role in defining the scientific method.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Strange

[dimreepr]

 

 

I would say it is not about being correct or not, but about asking questions and analysing the answers. Asking better questions, in other words. That is why it plays an important role in defining the second method.

 

 

Agreed, I just meant the conclusions.

[Randolpin]

Yes. But that's not the point. The fact that relative truths (differences of opinion) exist means that philosophy cannot always be correct.

So it depends on the perspective of an individual. That individual could be right or wrong. But what I mean is that there are really established absolute truths and relative truths of reality no matter what is the view of an individual. Meaning, it is independent on the perspective of an individual.

Example of absolute truth is the truth about water. All of us agree that water is water. Example of relative truth is our favorite food. It is relative because it depends on the taste of an individual.

See, absolute truths and relative truths exist independently. That differences of opinion happens only (imo) if we speculate unsoundly. It is different to our opinion for example of our favorite food because it really exist on ourselves.

[Klaynos]

Water is not just H2O though.

 

Water from your tap has a significantly different composition than if you get a glass from your local river or the ocean. Which one of those is water? All of them? None of them? Just H2O?

 

That doesn't look absolute to me. Yet another completely wrong example from randopin.

[Strange]

That differences of opinion happens only (imo) if we speculate unsoundly. It is different to our opinion for example of our favorite food because it really exist on ourselves.

 

 

How are those different?

 

Some people like broccoli and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion?

 

Some people think god exists and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion?

 

What about solipsism (the idea that only your mind exists)? There is not (cannot be, by definition) any evidence either way. What is the "correct" view on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[Randolpin]

How are those different?

 

No, what I mean is that relative view of truths resulted from unsound speculations are different from relative truths base from for example our taste of food, clothing etc.

Water is not just H2O though.

Water from your tap has a significantly different composition than if you get a glass from your local river or the ocean. Which one of those is water? All of them? None of them? Just H2O?

That doesn't look absolute to me. Yet another completely wrong example from randopin.

No, sorry, you seem to misunderstood me. What I mean is that all of us know that if we see a liquid in oceans, rivers, bathtubs, flowing from the faucet, etc. each individual if asked what is it will answer that that is "water". So in other words, the truth about water is not relative to everbody but absolute to everybody.

Offcourse, I know that water from the ocean compared to water from the faucet has different composition, but what I want you to see, is that in a common sense way- how people look on a liquid found in the oceans,rivers, faucet, etc.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

No, what I mean is that relative view of truths resulted from unsound speculations are different from relative truths base from for example our taste of food, clothing etc.

 

 

I know that is what you meant. I asked how they are different. How would you tell which is which? Presumably, you think there is some absolute difference between them, not just a matter opinion.

 

Some people like broccoli and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion?

Some people think god exists and some don't. They may reach different conclusions based on this. Is this unsound speculation or opinion?

What about solipsism (the idea that only your mind exists)? There is not (cannot be, by definition) any evidence either way. What is the "correct" or "true" view on this?

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Solipsism

Edited June 10, 2017 by Strange

[Klaynos]

No, sorry, you seem to misunderstood me. What I mean is that all of us know that if we see a liquid in oceans, rivers, bathtubs, flowing from the faucet, etc. each individual if asked what is it will answer that that is "water". So in other words, the truth about water is not relative to everbody but absolute to everybody.

Offcourse, I know that water from the ocean compared to water from the faucet has different composition, but what I want you to see, is that in a common sense way- how people look on a liquid found in the oceans,rivers, faucet, etc.

And you missunderstand me. None of your examples are water. They are mixes with a primary component being H2O. At what point does a pond go from water to muddy water to mud? This is not absolute, far from it. You're spouting nonsense.

[Strange]

Offcourse, I know that water from the ocean compared to water from the faucet has different composition, but what I want you to see, is that in a common sense way- how people look on a liquid found in the oceans,rivers, faucet, etc.

 

 

An important role of philosophy is to challenge "common sense" by analysing the ideas.

 

So people don't have a common view on these things. For example, some people feel they need to be near the ocean: it is comforting, a source of food and beautiful. Other people think of it as cold, dangerous and a thing to avoid.

 

Some people will happily drink water from a river or a faucet. Others will insist on bottled water.

 

Homer famously described the ocean as the "wine dark sea" whereas today we are more likely to say it is light blue or green.

 

So, I tend to agree: it is nonsense; you are just spouting your opinions instead of making rational arguments.

[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?

Within this particular definition , that you refer to . The one element of this definition that 'stands out ' as a possible impediment to philosophical thought is this statement in your presented definition !

 

Namely :- ....... " based on logical reasoning " . .......

 

This has a slight ' Causal '. Or ' Scientific ' , ring to it . Which could impose restrictions .

 

With this particular facet I would raise a warning note . :-

 

By judging an idea or path of thought on its ' Logic content ' , we may close down a possible region of research or philosophical understanding that lays beyond our current perception , which in fact harbours jewels of understanding previously undescovered.

New and exciting ways of looking at the ' Nature of the Cosmos ' , which will or could release

 

WONDERS BEYOND BELIEF .?

 

Mike

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Within this particular definition , that you refer to . The one element of this definition that 'stands out ' as a possible impediment to philosophical thought is this statement in your presented definition !

 

Namely :- ....... " based on logical reasoning " . .......

 

This has a slight ' Causal '. Or ' Scientific ' , ring to it . Which could impose restrictions .

 

 

The idea of logical argument was developed by philosophers as a way of rationalising / formalising the "laws of thought".

 

If you want free-wheeling thinking with no logic or restrictions or basis in reality, then you probably want writers on drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/16/drugs-history-literature

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The idea of logical argument was developed by philosophers as a way of rationalising / formalising the "laws of thought".

 

If you want free-wheeling thinking with no logic or restrictions or basis in reality, then you probably want writers on drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/16/drugs-history-literature

.

 

I take your point , and the references you gave about some famous people , and drugs .

 

I am not advocating drugs as a way to progress philosophical thought .

 

However it does touch , on a recent area of research . Namely , it has come to notice that . DAYDREAMING . which used to be thought of as a lack of discipline , by students and school children . .and more so teachers ( "Smith! , stop looking out the window . Concentrate on the lesson please ) . Now daydreaming has been proven to have some Jewel like content .

 

To quote a recent New Scientist article CONCENTRATE ( NEW SCIENTIST 20 May 2017 ) Caroline Williams .

" A wandering mind is not the enemy of concentration , if you know how to guide it . "

 

Perhaps then is not surprising that some past accounts of famous scientists having gained an insight while under the influence of drugs.

 

I am in no way advocating drug taking , but I can totally endorse getting into a " Day Dreaming " state to enhance creative thought processes . I use this process almost daily in my Retirement .

 

I walk the dog , usually through woodland , along side rivers , in parks . Etc the random nature, and unexpected images are to me the most stimulating way of formulating painting images as well as setting me off on new ideas and new philosophical thought!

 

Mike

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Now daydreaming has been proven to have some Jewel like content .

 

 

Even if it does, you have to apply some rational thought to the ideas you have, in order to filter out the nonsense.

 

I am reminded of the story of someone who kept having amazing ideas in his dreams, that contained the secret of the universe. But they faded from his mind within minutes of waking. He decided to keep a notebook by his bed to write down his thoughts as soon as he woke from a dream. In the morning he found his notebook full of things like "the smell of peanut butter pervades all".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Even if it does, you have to apply some rational thought to the ideas you have, in order to filter out the nonsense.

 

I am reminded of the story of someone who kept having amazing ideas in his dreams, that contained the secret of the universe. But they faded from his mind within minutes of waking. He decided to keep a notebook by his bed to write down his thoughts as soon as he woke from a dream. In the morning he found his notebook full of things like "the smell of peanut butter pervades all".

.

 

O.k. I can appreciate things could be totally random , if one says " anything goes " . But there can be a halfway compromise . Where one explores thoughts that are outside the realm of established science , yet with a large stretch of the imagination , one could ponder for a passing moment a possible concept that currently does not exist. Then expose the proposed concept to a few ( what if 's , or if that were to be the case ( where could that possibly lead ? ) . Or discuss it with a colleague who has a fairly open mind ?

 

I am sure this has been at the root of many ideas ( thought absurd at the time , that we currently take for granted? )

 

E.g l wonder if quantum tunnelling could work over astronomical distances ( with zero passage of time ) , like between here and the central region of the andromeda Galaxy ?

 

 

Mike

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Randolpin]

And you missunderstand me. None of your examples are water. They are mixes with a primary component being H2O. At what point does a pond go from water to muddy water to mud? This is not absolute, far from it. You're spouting nonsense.

Sorry,if it is not clear to you. I just want everybody to see what is there description if they see a liquid from the faucet, rivers, ocean- in a common sense way. If I ask you, what is the liquid coming out from the faucet, you would obviously answer water. If I ask also the same question to another person and so on and so forth. They will still answer "water". That is really I want to convey. I hope this makes clear enough.

 

That is the example of absolute truth I want to convey. Another examples, are the moon, the stars, the sun etc.-They are absolute truths. We all agree what they are.

 

In this aspect, we see that there are really absolute truths of reality which is obvious. You can't say that the sun is triangle because we all know, it is round.

An important role of philosophy is to challenge "common sense" by analysing the ideas.

 

So people don't have a common view on these things. For example, some people feel they need to be near the ocean: it is comforting, a source of food and beautiful. Other people think of it as cold, dangerous and a thing to avoid.

 

Some people will happily drink water from a river or a faucet. Others will insist on bottled water.

 

Homer famously described the ocean as the "wine dark sea" whereas today we are more likely to say it is light blue or green.

 

 

It is not the view of some people which is pure opinion because that is not my point. The point is what is there label if they see a liquid from the faucet etc. They will answer water-Obviously. If I ask you, what is it that flows in the faucet? You would obviously answer that that is water.

 

With regards to your question about relative truths. You ask how are relative view of truths different from relative truths (true view), they are different because the first is resulted from unsound speculation while the second doesn't require logic. I like coffee is not unsound speculation because you are a human being who have the ability to like. It does not require logic. Unsound speculations happens because it has standard to follow which is logic.

 

Example of unsound speculation. Piranhas live in the land. Obviously it is wrong because it doesn't follow the logical premise that fish live in the water. It is unsound speculation which is a relative view of truth (wrong view) of someone who have mental disorder. But if we say that I love piranhas is not unsound(explanation is on the top). It is relative. Others may not love piranhas.But it is not unsound because it is the result of you being a human being and it doesn't require logic because nobody can say he is wrong if he likes piranhas because that's what he likes.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Randolpin

[Klaynos]

Sorry,if it is not clear to you. I just want everybody to see what is there description if they see a liquid from the faucet, rivers, ocean- in a common sense way. If I ask you, what is the liquid coming out from the faucet, you would obviously answer water. If I ask also the same question to another person and so on and so forth. They will still answer "water". That is really I want to convey. I hope this makes clear enough.

 

That is the example of absolute truth I want to convey. Another examples, are the moon, the stars, the sun etc.-They are absolute truths. We all agree what they are.

 

In this aspect, we see that there are really absolute truths of reality which is obvious. You can't say that the sun is triangle because we all know, it is round.

It is not the view of some people which is pure opinion because that is not my point. The point is what is there label if they see a liquid from the faucet etc. They will answer water-Obviously. If I ask you, what is it that flows in the faucet? You would obviously answer that that is water.

And the point I am trying to convey is that this is no way absolute. There are many situations that claiming what you get out of a tap is water is going to either cause unpredictable results or cause danger. This is amplified with more unknown sources.

 

They very idea that we're having this discussion should show you that it's not absolute.

 

I also don't think that what is "common sense" to a group of ape descendents on a small blue green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun has any bearing on the fundemental working of the universe.

 

 

And in other news the sun isn't round. https://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-shape-revealed.html

[Randolpin]

And the point I am trying to convey is that this is no way absolute. There are many situations that claiming what you get out of a tap is water is going to either cause unpredictable results or cause danger. This is amplified with more unknown sources.

They very idea that we're having this discussion should show you that it's not absolute.

I also don't think that what is "common sense" to a group of ape descendents on a small blue green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun has any bearing on the fundemental working of the universe.

And in other news the sun isn't round. https://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-shape-revealed.html

So let me give another example to clear things out.

 

You see a coconut, somebody would say that what you see is coconut and so on.. All of them agree on what you see. This is what I mean. Now the question is,"How can you say that it is no way absolute?"

Edited June 13, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

That is the example of absolute truth I want to convey. Another examples, are the moon, the stars, the sun etc.-They are absolute truths. We all agree what they are.

 

Except we don't. At different times and places, people have had different theories about these things, based on what they knew at the time.

 

There are still quite a number of people who are convinced the world is flat. They can use any evidence to the contrary to support their theory.

 

There are people who insist that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe. Although this is probably wrong, it is impossible to disprove.

 

In this aspect, we see that there are really absolute truths of reality which is obvious.

But it is also irrelevant. You cannot use the existence of some notion of truth to argue that therefore philosophy is always correct. Apart from anything else, this leads to contradictions.

 

Example of unsound speculation. Piranhas live in the land. Obviously it is wrong because it doesn't follow the logical premise that fish live in the water.

 

You have chosen something we know to be factually wrong. This is closer to what you call "absolute truth".

 

And your premise that "fish live in water" is not logical. A premise cannot be "logical", by definition. Only the conclusion derived from the premise can be described as logical. This suggests that you are using the popular definition of logical as "something that makes sense".

 

In fact, your premise is not even completely true. There are fish that spend time on land.

 

You seem to have a very ill-defined and confused idea of what separates opinion from unsound speculation.

 

Maybe you should look up the definitions of valid and sound logical arguments.

 

Perhaps you should also read some of the philosophical literature on the meaning of "truth". It is not a simple concept (not even a single concept).

So let me give another example to clear things out.

 

You see a coconut, somebody would say that what you see is coconut and so on.. All of them agree on what you see. This is what I mean. Now the question is,"How can you say that it is no way absolute?"

 

And then a botanist comes along and tells you that it is not a coconut but instead the similar looking fruit of a different tree.

[Silvestru]

You see a coconut, somebody would say that what you see is coconut and so on.. All of them agree on what you see. This is what I mean. Now the question is,"How can you say that it is no way absolute?"

 

Actually your idea of a coconut is probably different than mine. As I think about the green fresh very "meaty" cover coconut, you probably think of the small brown, peeled coconut.

 

I do not understand why you keep referring to "absolute truth" like the tablets of Moses. There are no absolute truths, people have changed their perspectives throughout history.

 

It's actually Ironic that in ancient time we believed in an earth centered universe and of course that is not true but as the observer you can consider yourself right in the middle of "your" observable universe, if that makes you feel better.

[Klaynos]

Again the last two posts by themselves show that your coconut example is not absolute. This is getting old.

[Randolpin]

 

And then a botanist comes along and tells you that it is not a coconut but instead the similar looking fruit of a different tree.

Why do you say that? There is no difference at all. Probe the DNA of coconuts of the same species, they have the same genes. This is what I mean. There is absolute truth about coconuts of the same species as these coconuts have the same number of genes. Edited June 16, 2017 by Randolpin

[Silvestru]

Why do you say that? There is no difference at all. Probe the DNA of coconuts of the same species, they have the same genes. This is what I mean. There is absolute truth about coconuts of the same species as these coconuts have the same number of genes.

 

Unfortunately, me and you are the same species too but we have slightly different genes. If they take my DNA and yours they will be able to tell us apart.

 

Again a dumb example.

 

Drop the absolute truth idea Randolpin. Accept that all the "absolute truths" that we come up with are just meant to make you feel meaningful.

"Realize that all your life, all you know, all your love, all your hate, all your memories, all your pain - it was all the same thing. It's all the same dream, a dream that you had inside a locked room, a dream about being a person." (Rustin Cohle)

[Strange]

Why do you say that? There is no difference at all. Probe the DNA of coconuts of the same species, they have the same genes. This is what I mean. There is absolute truth about coconuts of the same species as these coconuts have the same number of genes.

 

 

My point was that everyone might agree it is a coconut (of that species) until someone else comes along and points out that they are wrong, that in fact it is not a coconut but a different fruit altogether. Suddenly your "absolute truth" is not so absolute.

 

This is rather like the "black swan" effect. Everyone might think that all swans are white because they have only ever seen white swans. So their absolute truth is that "all swans are white". And then one day a black swan comes along. Suddenly, their absolute truth turns out to be false. (Like that one about all fish living in water.)