mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Uhh.
That in no way relates to what I wrote.
Are you feeling ok?
Doing e.g. morality as morality is unknown to science, because you can't with science do morality. So it is outside science, yet knowable.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Uhh.
That in no way relates to what I wrote.
Are you feeling ok?
Doing e.g. morality as morality is unknown to science, because you can't with science do morality. So it is outside science, yet knowable.
You can't do morality properly without science, as science informs you on the consequences of your actions and the state and workings of the external world - which is the kind of information that seems quite relevant when engaging in moral evaluation of some action or behaviour.
Doing e.g. morality as morality is unknown to science, because you can't with science do morality. So it is outside science, yet knowable.
How the Trolley Problem Works
Yes, now solve this one only using science. You don't even need science to understand the consequences and how the external world works.
...
But none of this speaks to the premise of mind without brain, which is the premise you challenged before you got hopelessly entangled in your own flowery language while gazing into your own navel.
If you don't understand what the result is of a trolley impacting a human or groups of humans, then there isn't even a (recognized) problem to solve.
You should read what I write and respond to what I actually write, not what you imagine me to write.
I never said nore implied that science solves or can solve moral dilemma's.
What I actually said, was that science informs us about the consequences of our actions.
In this case, what the consequence is of hitting a person with a trolley.
Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it. It's a living thing that expands and changes as we learn. With this in mind saying something is outside science is saying something is unknowable, for now and always
morality as morality is unknown to science, because you can't with science do morality. So it is outside science, yet knowable.
As stated, you are confused. And no wonder, when you choose to believe lies instead of investigating on your own.
Well, eye witnesses can make such claims...... then it's up to you to prove them wrong.
There are plenty of innocent souls in prison right now because of "evidence".
"evidence " is only used to "prove" an allegation, or in this case a "hypothesis " and has NOTHING to do with finding "facts" (TRUTH).
the earth is flat...….according to the "science" of that day,
remember that one ?
intellectual idiots in white coats
Ok, so then you are off on an unrelated tangent.I am not speak of mind without brain. I am talking about that you can't use naive empiricism.
You can look at all the brain scans and what out, but you won't understand it, unless you have first person internal experience.
Ok, so then you are off on an unrelated tangent.
Again.
Have you anything to add to THIS discussion?
Sigh.Yes, you can't live your life only doing observation, nor can you live your life without observation.
Now to end this, so you can complain some more.
Some people to the effect of: Science is better than anything else. The joke is that it is not known with science. The word "better" is subjective. So they are claiming something subjective about an objective method. Great fun. In a sense it is like claiming something subjective is objective, just like some religious people do.
In short, objectivity is better than subjectivity. But "better" is subjective and objectivity is a subjective process.
So it is not only religious people, that claim something without evidence. So non-religious people can also be subjective and claim it is objective. So it is not a tangent. The confusion between subjective and objective/evidence is not unique to religious people.
Now fire away.
The second you can reproduce knowledge though a repeatable methodology, it becomes science.
If you can't reproduce it in such a way, it isn't really knowledge.
Even your cave man clubbing example is in fact science.
Knowledge, in the clearest epistimological(philosophical) sense, is 'justified true belief'. Scientific(reproducible, falsifiable) methods are the only reliable path to the 'justified' and 'true' parts of that definition.
But it isn't, as I pointed out and listed the reasons for already.Doing e.g. morality as morality is unknown to science, because you can't with science do morality. So it is outside science, yet knowable.
Nonsense.Then history isn't knowledge, and the ability to differentiate between science and religion isn't knowledge, and countless other things that we didn't formulate as a result of a repeatable methodology. And things like maths and logic would, at best, occupy a somewhat grey area.
When we deal with both complexity and uncertainty, we often have to rely on experience based heuristics that may not be factually true, but are ultimately beneficial guides for behaviour. Heuristic - Wikipedia
In other situations, we may acquire tacit knowledge, something we understand implicitly from experience yet can't really articulate Tacit knowledge - Wikipedia
You are just expressing some simplistic form of logical positivism that went out of fashion 75 or so years ago.
Not according to the normal usage of the term it's not, and not according to the ideas of the vast majority of scientists and philosophers of science.
Which do you think is more likely?
a) Almost all of the contemporary scientists and philosophers of science who have spent large parts of their life dealing with the demarcation problem are so stupid they couldn't understand that science is just all repeatable knowledge.
b) The issue is far more complex than you seem to think
What constitutes knowledge (or justified or true) is a philosophical question, and thus not knowledge according to you.
And then we have to consider that falsifiability is not something which the majority of contemporary scholars see as a clear demarcation between science and not science any more.
2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?
Falsifiability
In a world where scientific theories often sound bizarre and counter to everyday intuition, and where a wide variety of nonsense aspires to be recognized as "scientific," it's important to be able to separate science from non-science—what philosophers call "the demarcation problem." Karl Popper famously suggested the criterion of "falsifiability"—a theory is scientific if it makes clear predictions that can be unambiguously falsified.
It's a well-meaning idea, but far from the complete story. Popper was concerned with theories such as Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxist economics, which he considered non-scientific. No matter what actually happens to people or societies, Popper claimed, theories like these will always be able to tell a story in which the data are compatible with the theoretical framework. He contrasted this with Einstein's relativity, which made specific quantitative predictions ahead of time. (One prediction of general relativity was that the universe should be expanding or contracting, leading Einstein to modify the theory because he thought the universe was actually static. So even in this example the falsifiability criterion is not as unambiguous as it seems.)
Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.
The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.
Edge.org
But it isn't, as I pointed out and listed the reasons for already.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
I am not hitting a person with a trolley. I am either letting 5 humans be hit by not pulling the lever or letting them not be hit, by letting one human be hit.
Way to miss the point made. AGAIN.
Unnecessarily overcomplicating things with vague and ambiguous statements, AGAIN.Is there something I know that I know and that I know how to do without using science: Yes, and I just did it. I am subjective, when I say yes. I know that and I know how to test subjectivity. I test if I can do something subjectively.
Since science as a human method is to do something as a human: Use objectivity, I just check, if I can do something subjectively using subjectivity and then I know, that is not science, I am doing. So again: I know how to test science for its limits in the everyday world, we all are a part of. I test, if I can do something else than do science. That is the test. And I have just done so. I use philosophy, I know that and I know how to do that.
Regards
Mikkel