Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Which philosophy, Banach-Tarski Paradox???

You use the singular “philosophy“, as if all the hundreds, if not thousands, of different philosophies, agree with others. The reality is that many of the philosophies have different focuses.

For instances, many are focused on personal worldviews, and different schools of thought would often disagree with each other‘s “worldview”, and they can’t be all “right”. It is the same with philosophies that focus on different cultures, and again, there may be disagreements as to which social norms are better. For example, there are philosophies that exist in the US, where there are many different cultures and customs, like one philosophy might embrace diversity of different cultures, but another philosophy that might promote an all-white American culture, or another philosophy that think all-black American culture. Each one of these 3 philosophies would often disagree with each other’s philosophies, so how would you pick which philosophy is correct or better.

It is the same with different political philosophies, eg democracy vs socialism, capitalism vs communism, etc. And different religious philosophies.

None of the above philosophies are focused on Natural Sciences, so really, they have no use, to how science works.

Richard Freynman is generalising; he speak of philosophy as if there is only philosophy, when there are hun of different philosophies. So unless Freynman can tell us which “philosophy“ of what he talking about, then Freynman saying that no one “should criticise philosophers”, only demonstrated that he is a bloody fool who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

here is a question for you, BPT:

Should a physicist agree with a philosopher simply because his or her status as a “philosopher“, when that philosopher has never study physics before?

If you were to say yes, then it would be like asking asking a wise man to follow a fool…which is not only unreasonable and unproductive, but also unrealistic.

Just because someone call themselves philosophers, don’t make them right, especially if they have no education and no experience in any scientific field.

Since the text was copied from a link that I didn’t personally post, I’d have to check out the link again, to answer your question about which philosophy.

Will you please do that for me, and let me know what you find?

Richard Feynman is a discussion that would require a few dozen separate posts.

Please let me know when you have the time, and perhaps we can schedule an appointment.

As for fools, you aren’t a Pink Floyd fan by any chance, are you?

Just for fun, let’s be fearless, and start here:

Pink Floyd- Fearless Lyrics​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which philosophy, Banach-Tarski Paradox???

You use the singular “philosophy“, as if all the hundreds, if not thousands, of different philosophies, agree with others. The reality is that many of the philosophies have different focuses.

For instances, many are focused on personal worldviews, and different schools of thought would often disagree with each other‘s “worldview”, and they can’t be all “right”. It is the same with philosophies that focus on different cultures, and again, there may be disagreements as to which social norms are better. For example, there are philosophies that exist in the US, where there are many different cultures and customs, like one philosophy might embrace diversity of different cultures, but another philosophy that might promote an all-white American culture, or another philosophy that think all-black American culture. Each one of these 3 philosophies would often disagree with each other’s philosophies, so how would you pick which philosophy is correct or better.

It is the same with different political philosophies, eg democracy vs socialism, capitalism vs communism, etc. And different religious philosophies.

None of the above philosophies are focused on Natural Sciences, so really, they have no use, to how science works.

Richard Freynman is generalising; he speak of philosophy as if there is only philosophy, when there are hun of different philosophies. So unless Freynman can tell us which “philosophy“ of what he talking about, then Freynman saying that no one “should criticise philosophers”, only demonstrated that he is a bloody fool who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

here is a question for you, BPT:

Should a physicist agree with a philosopher simply because his or her status as a “philosopher“, when that philosopher has never study physics before?

If you were to say yes, then it would be like asking asking a wise man to follow a fool…which is not only unreasonable and unproductive, but also unrealistic.

Just because someone call themselves philosophers, don’t make them right, especially if they have no education and no experience in any scientific field.

Now I get what you are saying about some parts of philosophy.
But, what about a philosopher of science and science as such?

 

[shunyadragon]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/308355905708446067/

Huh?!?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

Since the text was copied from a link that I didn’t personally post, I’d have to check out the link again, to answer your question about which philosophy.

Will you please do that for me, and let me know what you find?

Richard Feynman is a discussion that would require a few dozen separate posts.

Please let me know when you have the time, and perhaps we can schedule an appointment.

As for fools, you aren’t a Pink Floyd fan by any chance, are you?

Just for fun, let’s be fearless, and start here:

Pink Floyd- Fearless Lyrics​

Personally I am indifferent to Pink Floyd. I would prefer straight answers to theissuesathand with relevant references,

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Personally I am indifferent to Pink Floyd. I would prefer straight answers to theissuesathand with relevant references,

Your religion and culture does not allow you to consider relevant sources.

You’ve proven that over and over again.

Science might contradict your deeply held beliefs.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Huh?!?!?!?!

MAA Blog: Caffeine: The Frenemy of Mathematicians — MATH VALUES

Alexis Newton explains the effect caffeinated beverages have on your body.

www.mathvalues.org

Making Mathematics: The Coffee Connection

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27558952

AMS Blogs: Coffee Into Theorems

Coffee into Theorems |

The Beautiful Mathematics of the Coffee Cup Caustics​

Math Physics Engineering

Qué Bonita Es Esta Vida -Jorge Celedon​

 

[shunyadragon]

MAA Blog: Caffeine: The Frenemy of Mathematicians — MATH VALUES

Alexis Newton explains the effect caffeinated beverages have on your body.

www.mathvalues.org

Making Mathematics: The Coffee Connection

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27558952

AMS Blogs: Coffee Into Theorems

Coffee into Theorems |

The Beautiful Mathematics of the Coffee Cup Caustics​

Math Physics Engineering

Qué Bonita Es Esta Vida -Jorge Celedon​

Nothing here is remotely meaningful to the thread topic.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Nothing here is remotely meaningful to the thread topic.

You inserted yourself into a conversation about Coffee.

Don’t do that if you are incapable of following along,

Post in thread 'Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.'
Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

 

[gnostic]

Now I get what you are saying about some parts of philosophy.
But, what about a philosopher of science and science as such?

A “philosopher of science” is meaningless as there are also numbers of different “philosophies” of science.

You are mistakenly assuming like BTP did, as if there are only ONE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

There are several types of philosophies in Metaphysics (some of which are older, and therefore outdated), as well as several types of Naturalism (eg Religious Naturalism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Methodological Naturalism, etc). There are Empiricism, Verificationism, Logical Positivism, Logical Empiricism, and numbers of Analytic philosophies.

Then there are vying reasonings in logic, or the logism, like a priori vs a posteriori, or using one of the inference approaches - deduction vs induction vs abduction.

Then there people like Immanuel Kant who proposed ditching all evidence, in favour of pure reason or his version of metaphysics.

Then there are many philosophers who have their own versions of “philosophy of science“.

Each ones advocate for different approaches to logical reasoning, while others advise scientists different methods of gathering information or gathering evidence, and so on. Each philosophers trying to justify to scientists to use their respective philosophies, believing they have the right one…here is where the so-called “philosopher of science”, believed he or she in the right, and everyone else are wrong. That’s “egos” and “biases” talking if they believe their philosophies are fool-proof, omniscient, inerrant & sacred.

I don’t think any of philosophers or any of philosophies hold ALL THE ANSWERS.

So my question to you, would be same to Banach-Tarski Paradox. Can you be more specific as to which philosopher or which philosophy?

 

[gnostic]

Since the text was copied from a link that I didn’t personally post, I’d have to check out the link again, to answer your question about which philosophy.

Will you please do that for me, and let me know what you find?

Richard Feynman is a discussion that would require a few dozen separate posts.

Please let me know when you have the time, and perhaps we can schedule an appointment.

As for fools, you aren’t a Pink Floyd fan by any chance, are you?

Just for fun, let’s be fearless, and start here:

Pink Floyd- Fearless Lyrics​

You are like another member here, who often post irrelevant music videos from YouTube.

I would prefer straight answers from you, because I rarely have times to watch videos.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You are mistakenly assuming like BTP did, as if there are only ONE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

You do realize that you are telling the person who provided the link that I made some sort if assumption by quoting from the link, don’t you?

And you do realize just how silly it is for you to claim that I made the assumption that you are claiming that I made, don’t you?

Why do you keep claiming that people are saying things that they aren’t saying?

Does it make your arguments easier, somehow?

 

[gnostic]

You do realize that you are telling the person who provided the link that I made some sort if assumption by quoting from the link, don’t you?

And you do realize just how silly it is for you to claim that I made the assumption that you are claiming that I made, don’t you?

Why do you keep claiming that people are saying things that they aren’t saying?

Does it make your arguments easier, somehow?

If you provided a link that you agree with, then it isn't silly to ask you question is related to your source.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If you provided a link that you agree with, then it isn't silly to ask you question is related to your source.

If I provided a link, it would be ignored.

But I didn’t. The person you were talking to provided the link. I just quoted from it.

Nobody ever questions any of my sources, except to say that they are idiotic or something because they don’t fit into somebody else’s preconceived notions.

But nobody ever questions any of my sources in detail.

That just doesn’t happen.

People ignore my sources.

My sources are from historiographers, anthropologists, musicians, dancers, artists, etc.

You yourself have never questioned any of my sources, although you’ve spent an inordinate amount of time telling me about various general trivia about them, from your culture’s point of view.

 

[firedragon]

Your religion and culture does not allow you to consider relevant sources.

You’ve proven that over and over again.

Science might contradict your deeply held beliefs.

From your point of view or paradigm, how could science contradict the existence of God.

(Not saying who ever you were addressing made this point. And if you think this is irrelevant, you can leave this question aside).

Thank you.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

From your point of view or paradigm, how could science contradict the existence of God.

(Not saying who ever you were addressing made this point. And if you think this is irrelevant, you can leave this question aside).

Thank you.

That’s quite apart from anything that dragondude and I have discussed (I provided a partial list above), but I do have a post here somewhere with my plan for proving my own non-existence, in collaboration with the physicists.

I’m still waiting for the physicists to do their part, so I can start with my part.

But time is running out.

Where’s that TOE I’m waiting for?

I’m not getting any younger, here!

If I am successful in proving my own non-existence, I figure I’ll try to find an analogous proof that works for God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A “philosopher of science” is meaningless as there are also numbers of different “philosophies” of science.

You are mistakenly assuming like BTP did, as if there are only ONE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

There are several types of philosophies in Metaphysics (some of which are older, and therefore outdated), as well as several types of Naturalism (eg Religious Naturalism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Methodological Naturalism, etc). There are Empiricism, Verificationism, Logical Positivism, Logical Empiricism, and numbers of Analytic philosophies.

Then there are vying reasonings in logic, or the logism, like a priori vs a posteriori, or using one of the inference approaches - deduction vs induction vs abduction.

Then there people like Immanuel Kant who proposed ditching all evidence, in favour of pure reason or his version of metaphysics.

Then there are many philosophers who have their own versions of “philosophy of science“.

Each ones advocate for different approaches to logical reasoning, while others advise scientists different methods of gathering information or gathering evidence, and so on. Each philosophers trying to justify to scientists to use their respective philosophies, believing they have the right one…here is where the so-called “philosopher of science”, believed he or she in the right, and everyone else are wrong. That’s “egos” and “biases” talking if they believe their philosophies are fool-proof, omniscient, inerrant & sacred.

I don’t think any of philosophers or any of philosophies hold ALL THE ANSWERS.

So my question to you, would be same to Banach-Tarski Paradox. Can you be more specific as to which philosopher or which philosophy?

Correct there is no single philosophy of science as there is no single version of science.