Did Science Break from Philosophy? Why and When? Who Made the Call?

[ajb]

All I can say is that it is not clear how you can have a mind without a brain. Thus, separating the two clearly is not so obvious.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

What scheme?

Listen, mothers who abort their children and men who compel them to do so are both victims. People who choose strange sexual ways are victims. But places like Princeton are far more demonic even than these folks' abusers.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

Listen, mothers who abort their children and men who compel them to do so are both victims. People who choose strange sexual ways are victims. But places like Princeton are far more demonic even than these folks' abusers.

What are you talking about?

 

We should try to keep this on-topic. The topic is about the separation of philosophy and science ... which in my opinion is not very clear as there is a philosophy behind science. Please try to keep with the boundaries of your opening questions and comments.

[Strange]

Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

 

 

As far as as we can tell (scientifically) the mind is a result of the brain's activity.

[B. John Jones]

You are getting off topics -- Einstein's views on religion are not important in discussing the relation between philosophy and science. Einstein's views on philosophy maybe more interesting here: he does not seem to have been a great fan of metaphysics. But then one person's views do not define the 'view of science'.

Faith is an aspect of philosophy. Einstein was, yes, was, both Christian, and a great scientific thinker.

What are you talking about?

 

We should try to keep this on-topic. The topic is about the separation of philosophy and science ... which in my opinion is not very clear as there is a philosophy behind science. Please try to keep with the boundaries of your opening questions and comments.

This has to do with quotes cited whose source is Princeton. I think it's very fair to evaluate their legitimacy.

[Strange]

Faith is an aspect of philosophy. Einstein was, yes, was, both Christian, and a great scientific thinker.

This has to do with quotes cited whose source is Princeton. I think it's very fair to evaluate their legitimacy.

 

 

The source of those quotes was Einstein. And show he was not a Christian. If anything, he was a non-religious Jew.

 

And how does your personal opinion of Princeton affect their credibility?

Edited June 2, 2016 by Strange

[ajb]

Faith is an aspect of philosophy.

Okay, but what has this to do with your opening post?

 

I think we have discussed 'blind faith' and belief based on evidence.

 

 

Einstein was, yes, was, both Christian,...

But this is not true. We know that Einstein did not subscribe to any organised religion. His views are well documented.

 

Still, this is not really important. We have religous scientists and those that are not. Some scientists think more about philosophy that others... so what?

 

 

If anything, he was a non-religious Jew.

Exactly. His ethnicity was Jewish. His parents were 'secular Jews', Einstein himself said '...irreligious (Jewish) parents'.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

The source of those quotes was Einstein. And show he was not a Christian. If anything, he was a non-religious Jew.

 

And how does your personal opinion of Princeton affect their credibility?

Princeton published those "quotes." In my view, whenever they can distort truth, they do. I gave 2 prominent examples in the 2 classes of victims. Princeton is very pro-roevwade-dontaskdonttell.

But the topic is science breaking from philosophy. So, in the first example, the problem with the basis of Roe vs. Wade is that they base their decision on a woman's so-called right to do what she wants with her own body. If that's the basis of American law, then that law contradicts itself. Should a woman have the right to prostitute her body? See? She's the victim in both cases. If it's not the pimp exploiting her, it's the abortion clinics. So that's the correct legal precept. Scientifically, it is murder because the child has sensation. Not only that, the child has affection. There are replete quantities of imaging clearly demonstrating natural affections one twin toward the other in mothers' wombs. Science, and society today is the furthest thing from being objective.

 

It cannot be objective without unity with it's philosophic origin.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

Legal decisions have little or nothing to do with science. They may, occasionally, use science to come up with a law or to assista court decision. But equally often they ignore the science for reasons of policy, public opinion, religion, or whatever.

 

Philosophy, of course, has an important role to play in decisions about the sort of topics you mention (but I suspect those are too specific to discuss in this thread).

 

 

Scientifically, it is murder because the child has sensation.

 

"Murder" is not a scientific concept. So, no. But, of course, science can tell you when and whether a developing organism has various capabilities. Society can then use that information to decide what to do.

 

Some societies think it is OK to inflict pain or to kill their citizens (e.g. the USA has capital punishment). But that has nothing to do with science.

Princeton published those "quotes." In my view, whenever they can distort truth, they do.

 

Only one of them. And that was Princeton University Press, which is not the same as Princeton University. That quotation came from a letter written by Einstein himself. The book was edited by friends and colleagues of Einstein. Don't you think they would have noticed if the publisher had changed the content? It sounds like you are inventing a conspiracy because you don't like the truth.

[B. John Jones]

Legal decisions have little or nothing to do with science. They may, occasionally, use science to come up with a law or to assista court decision. But equally often they ignore the science for reasons of policy, public opinion, religion, or whatever.

 

Philosophy, of course, has an important role to play in decisions about the sort of topics you mention (but I suspect those are too specific to discuss in this thread).

 

 

"Murder" is not a scientific concept. So, no. But, of course, science can tell you when and whether a developing organism has various capabilities. Society can then use that information to decide what to do.

 

Some societies think it is OK to inflict pain or to kill their citizens (e.g. the USA has capital punishment). But that has nothing to do with science.

 

Only one of them. And that was Princeton University Press, which is not the same as Princeton University. That quotation came from a letter written by Einstein himself. The book was edited by friends and colleagues of Einstein. Don't you think they would have noticed if the publisher had changed the content? It sounds like you are inventing a conspiracy because you don't like the truth.

There's a whole field of science toward law--forensic science.

 

Murder is not a scientific concept, but it depends on the establishment of death, which is intimately scientifically determinable. Society can't decide anything. Social groups can.

 

Capital punishment and torture have many scientific implications.

 

No, I know the culture of Princeton University. As far as my conclusion, it's assumption, and somewhat hasty, but in my view likely.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Arete]

As far as my conclusion, it's assumption, and somewhat hasty, but in my view likely.

 

Einstein spoke extensively on religion - they are simply a couple of the more illustrative of the hundreds of quotes he made on the subject. Even Creation magazine acknowledges that he wasn't a Christian. Any claim that he was, is either woefully misinformed or deliberately deceitful. Sorry for the hijack everyone.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Arete

[CharonY]

 

Nonsense. Whatever color or other patterns of motion and imagery we can detect in the brain, hormones, electrolytic whatever, there's a very obvious conclusion. Have you ever chosen something physically? Like to grab a donut, or cup of coffee or glass of water? Once you've chosen, you get up, and get what you want. Right? You choose first, then you move. Your limbs. Your muscles. Your hormones. Etc. Now, choice--is the cause, not the effect of those motions. Right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware, or at least you wouldn't have any choice in the matter. Right? Choice, you choose a glass of water, then you move. Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

 

That is not what our current knowledge says. Since the Libet expertiments there is evidence that either the decision is made before it becomes conscious, or that it is a concurrent event. The weight of evidence is against a full-formed decision and then initiation sequence of events.

[Strange]

Here is a good definition of types of knowledge from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy entry on "Philosophy and Science":

At least three kinds of knowledge are then recognized. Science gives us systematic, institutionally warranted, and technologically exploitable knowledge of the uniformities and probabilities in our natural and socal environments. Everyday knowledge informs us about the immediately obvious features of the facts that confront us. And philosophy provides knowledge of the fundamental principles and assumptions in accordance with which we reason.

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I think we can call a halt to any more unsubstantiated and scurrilous imputations regarding Princeton and the University Press.

 

Do not respond to this moderation.