Abracadabra wrote:



Abra,

There is nothing erroneous about that. Science is necessarily empirically based, and philosophy is not. No amount of rhetoric changes that fact.

That is the line, regardless of whether or not you want it to be.

Your categorical errors are just that, my friend.

So would "the line" be a line between the Objective and the subjective?

If so, wouldn't that line be the physical manifestation of us? (Our body which is our physical observation point... the body and the senses)

Therefore I suggest that we (our bodies and minds) are the line between science and philosophy.

It divides the subjective (what we think) from the objective (what we observe.)

Therefore:

If I were to observe a blue house and was asked what color the house was from where I stood, I would (and must) answer that the house was "blue on this side" because according to scientific inquiry I could not safely assume that it was the same color on each side.

So according to scientific investigation in order to answer what color the house was on all sides, I would have to walk around the entire house observing it. Anything less would be an assumption, hence a philosophy.

If I 'think' the house is blue on all sides, that is subjective speculation. If I observe that it is blue on all sides, that is scientific method.

Therefore:

What we assume or 'think' (or imagine) is not scientific. It is subjective, hence philosophy.

What we observe and agree upon and test is scientific. That is objective, hence science.

Is this correct? If not, please tell me where the line is drawn specifically.

Well, again Michael, you are attempting to assert absolutes here which I simply do not agree with.

I will agree that science should always remain empirical (even though modern science has indeed strayed far from that ideal).

Hoever, I disagree with you that philosophy must refrain from considering the empirical. Where do you get that idea?

Why should philosophers be restrainted from considering empirical evidence?

In other words, there may be a line within science that says that scientists are not permitted to consider non-empirical ideas (which clearly doesn't exist in the modern practice of science anyway).

But what would be the grounds to demand that no philosophers should be permitted to consider empirically extablished knowledge in their philosophies?

That make no sense at all.

So if any such line exists it would be a one-way barrier preventing scientists from considering non-empirical ideas, but it could not be applied to philosophers demanding that they never be allowed to consider empricially verified ideas.

So from the philosopher's point of view no such line would exist.

Any such line would only apply to scientists. And clearly modern scientists aren't even restricted by any such line. If they were they couldn't propose things like String Theory because strings have never been empirically verified to exist. Nor have "hidden dimensions" been empirically shown to exist, yet another concept that scientists are toying with in their theories.

So any line that exists would only apply to scientists anyway, and it could never be applied to philosophers.

So is seems silly to me to even suggest that any such line exists. Yet you are demanding that it does exist whether I like it or not.

Well, you are more than welcome to your views and opinions.

I don't accept them, nor do I share them.

That's all I know to tell you.

Since the rest of your post is built upon this strawman, allow me to burn it in place...

Noone said that philosophy must refrain from considering the empirical. That does not follow from what I wrote. You asked for the line. I gave it. I did not make it up. That is the line.

Science necessarily holds that the universe is as we see it to be. Philosophy does not necessarily hold that to be the case.

If you cannot understand that distinction, then you could not possibly know the difference between the two. That is becoming more and more apparent. That is your categorical error in thinking, and ultimately shows me exactly why you equivocate between the two so frequently.

Truly.

I don't understand these people who are attempting to separate science and philosophy in such a rigid and absolute way.

I can see someone taking the approach that their philosophy consists solely of the scientific method of inquiry.

That's fine! More power to them!

But then to argue that everyone else must either take a strict scientific approach to philosophy, or totally refrain from ever mentioning anything that has been empirically verified, is utter nonsense!

That's absurd.

Why should other people be restrained by these extremely limited and boxed-in views?

If a philosopher wants to take all the empirical information that science has been able to muster thus far, and consider that into a more all-encompassing philosophy, then why should that be frowned upon or dismissed as somehow being "improper"?

Says who?

What are the grounds for placing such limitations on philosophy?

Have fun making nonsense...

I have better thoughts to read.

But that's not a LINE.

That's a ONE WAY SIEVE

Like I said before, scientists aren't supposed to cross that line.

But clearly philosophers can do anything they want.

So it's only a line for "scientists" and would not be a boundary for philosopher at all.

Therefore from a philosophical point of view it's utterly meaningless.

No such line exists for philosophers.

Therefore this is a non-issue for philosophy.

In other words, even if the forum were to break up into two parts, One forum called "Science" and the other forum called "Philosophy". Then, in the "Science" forum only science could be discussed. However, in the "Philosophy" forum science and its discoveries would still be a valid topic of discussion.

In other words, science is but a mere "subset" of philosophy. But that doesn't restrict philosophers in any way. It only restricts scientists.

So it's not a "line" that separates these things. It's just a one-way sieve that serves to keep science as a mere "subset" of philosophy.

absurd to the point that it doesn't even deserve this reply. confine others to my way of thinking my a$$. you're more intelligent than that. is typing my thinking here that confining to you? shall i type your thinking instead in open forum where the exchange of view is encouraged? absurd and preposterous.

it has everything to do with your absurd comment about scientific method and scientists giving up the idea of quarks because for now the metodology fails us in this regard. it illustrates that the method is far from stangnant. that it is continuously evolving and that what we don't understand about phenomena such as quarks today we may very well understand tomorrow.

Well, I think you've misunderstood.

I'm not suggesting that scientists should give up the idea of quarks. On the contrary, I think Gell-Mann's quarks were a major breakthrough in our understanding of quantum physics.

I merely suggest that IF scientists were indeed restricted to empirical evidence only, then they'd have no choice but to give up the idea of quarks.

So, in a very real sense, the scientific success of this estoteric, and totally imagined idea, only serves to drive home the point of just how valuable non-empirical ideas can be!

I'm all for supporting the idea of quarks!

I'm not the one who's attempting to argue that everything must be grounded in empirical evidence.

So please understand that I never suggested that scientists should give up the idea of quarks. I merely pointed out the fact that IF they were restricted to only considering ideas that can be empricially verified they'd have to give them up!

Fortunately, they don't abide to the empirical restrictions that the people here have been demanding.

And they clearly aren't abiding to that restriction when considering Strings and Hidden Dimensions either.

This balancing act is all a part of the game.The Galaxy Game

No, you could never confine my thinking. But from what I have read, you seem to support the idea that scientists should confine theirs to strictly empirical evidence only. If this is not what you meant, then I apologize.

that's exactly what i meant but that's not what you said. in your absurdity you refered to how I should not attempt to confine others to MY way of thinking. your outrageousness was directed specifically at ME. you mentioned nothing about my THINKING that scientists should confine theirs to empirical evidence only and you know it. if this is not what i meant, then you apologize? it's what you damn well know that YOU meant that you might apologize for. you knew when you said it that i don't try to confine other's thinking. you admit that with your, "from what i read" when from what you read you cannot find one example where you've read that i attempt to confine your's or anybody elses thinking. back peddling again bean. do you ever say anything and wished you hadn't? talk about someone always in need of being right. jeez.

this will not matter to you of course but i think you'll find my replies to your posts becoming more and more scarce especially regarding topics that we'll never agree on. i'm not here for the personal attacks. i'm here to attack the ideas and views of persons. i do that with my wit and intelligence and disregard debating tactics that absurdly and wrongly accuse an opponent of attempting to confining others to their way of thinking simply because their way of thinking conflicts with my way of thinking. such strategies neverf succeed in making the point i wanted to make in the first place.

jrbogie,
You appear to have quite a temper and you assume a lot.

"Your way of thinking" is your opinion that that scientists should confine their thinking to strictly empirical evidence. Not everyone agrees with you, including some scientists.

If that is your opinion, that's fine by me. I don't see your reasoning in it but I don't care anymore. I am not going to respond to you if my responses are just going make you angry.

Peace.