Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Left Coast]

That is what is relative. If we are discussing as share inter-subjective experience of the simulated things in a simulated universe or not.
Logical applies to cognition. Not things in themselves, but your experiences in your mind.
Stop confusing logic and metaphysics/ontology.

Again, I'm not confusing anything. Please stop telling me what to do when you don't actually know what you're talking about. You don't have room to lecture others on logic when you're literally arguing against the law of non-contradiction. Whether the pen exists only in my mind, or in reality, it remains the case that it can't be both longer than 3 inches and not longer than 3 inches, in the same way and at the same time.

 

[Left Coast]

A statement about a thing and whether it is logical, is not the-thing-in-itself.
You are confusing logic with metaphysics/ontology and epistemology.

"A-thing-in-itself" is a term with no meaning if you deny the law of non-contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"A-thing-in-itself" is a term with no meaning if you deny the law of non-contradiction.

Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.
laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts

A-thing-in-itself is metaphysics. What that is, is unknown other than being a formal abstract idea of the objective as independent of the mind and thus it is unknown if the law of non-contradiction applies to it.

We are doing logic, metaphysics and epistemology and you treat them as the same. They are not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, I'm not confusing anything. Please stop telling me what to do when you don't actually know what you're talking about. You don't have room to lecture others on logic when you're literally arguing against the law of non-contradiction. Whether the pen exists only in my mind, or in reality, it remains the case that it can't be both longer than 3 inches and not longer than 3 inches, in the same way and at the same time.

If the thing in reality is unknown, then it is unknown if logic applies to it.

Edit: In your mind and in reality are not the same. Unless you can prove that they are the same and thus your mind is reality. I don't know if you will accept that.

 

[Audie]

"Relative" in this case means relatively true: true relative to a specific set of conditions and circumstances, while not true relative to other conditions and circumstances. All facts are relative by this understanding of the term.

This qualifier should not be necessary for thinking humans, but in many instances it is necessary to remind us that facts are NOT absolutely true, nor always true. Nor should they be taken that way.

A check on who called this "winner" says it all

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A check on who called this "winner" says it all

Please use a reason justified argument, if you are capable of that.

That you don't in effect like philosophy, is a subjective feeling in you. Start using rationality also. You can combine them if you like. But knowledge, truth and all that has nothing to do with feelings. If that was the case, God would exists. And I know you don't accept that so start using rationality and learn its limit.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Faith doesnt require science, aswell science is terminal by it's own admission. Dont drink the koolaid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Faith doesnt require science.

But faith can't do it alone.

 

[Left Coast]

Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.
laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts

A-thing-in-itself is metaphysics. What that is, is unknown other than being a formal abstract idea of the objective as independent of the mind and thus it is unknown if the law of non-contradiction applies to it.

We are doing logic, metaphysics and epistemology and you treat them as the same. They are not.

Both metaphysics and epistemology, along with every other field of inquiry in philosophy, require logic to cohere at all. You cannot "do metaphysics" or "do ontology" without logic (not coherently, anyway). If you deny the law of non-contradiction, a-thing-in-itself can't be distinguished from a-thing-not-in-itself. Which leads to completely incoherent nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both metaphysics and epistemology, along with every other field of inquiry in philosophy, require logic to cohere at all. You cannot "do metaphysics" or "do ontology" without logic (not coherently, anyway). If you deny the law of non-contradiction, a-thing-in-itself can't be distinguished from a-thing-not-in-itself. Which leads to completely incoherent nonsense.

You assume that you can say anything meaningful about objective reality as strongly independent of your mind other than being independent of your mind. You can't, because it is unknown.
The only thing you can say as true about objective reality is that it is independent of your mind. Whether logic applies to objective reality in itself is unknown.
You can apply logic to objective reality in relationship to you. It can't be independent and not, but that is all the logic you can apply. Logic is always in relationship to your mind. Whether logic exists independently of your mind or not, is unknown.

Thus logic, existence and knowledge are not the same and they can't be reduced to one.
Sound and valid are not the same and knowledge applies differently to them.

 

[Left Coast]

If the thing in reality is unknown, then it is unknown if logic applies to it.

Edit: In your mind and in reality are not the same. Unless you can prove that they are the same and thus your mind is reality. I don't know if you will accept that.

Again...no.

Whether we're talking about concepts or physical objects, logic applies.

 

[Left Coast]

You assume that you can say anything meaningful about objective reality as strongly independent of your mind other than being independent of your mind. You can't, because it is unknown.
The only thing you can say as true about objective reality is that it is independent of your mind. Whether logic applies to objective reality in itself is unknown.
You can apply logic to objective reality in relationship to you. It can't be independent and not, but that is all the logic you can apply. Logic is always in relationship to your mind. Whether logic exists independently of your mind or not, is unknown.

Thus logic, existence and knowledge are not the same and they can't be reduced to one.
Sound and valid are not the same and knowledge applies differently to them.

Again....no. you are just incorrect. I don't know how else to explain this to you. Literally every word in your post is contingent on rules of logic to cohere. Whether we're talking about things in my mind, or things in external reality, if we want to conceive them or communicate about them coherently, we have to employ logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again...no.

Whether we're talking about concepts or physical objects, logic applies.

They are not the same. So for the fact that logic applies to thinking, it doesn't logically follow that logic applies to things.

P1: Logic is in the mind.
P2: Objective reality in itself is something else as it is independent of the mind.
Therefore logic applies to objective reality.

As it stands it is an invalid.
To save it you have to make at least one sound premise

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again....no. you are just incorrect. I don't know how else to explain this to you. Literally every word in your post is contingent on rules of logic to cohere. Whether we're talking about things in my mind, or things in external reality, if we want to conceive them or communicate about them coherently, we have to employ logic.

We are not talking about your experiences of external reality. We are talking about external reality independent of your experiences. You keep treating those 2 as the same. With logic they are not. The one is to you and the other is independent of you. That is with logic not the same.
Now what the formal idea of independent of you is other than independent of you, is unknown, because it is independent of you and since logic is in your experiences and mind, you can't know if there is logic independent of you.

 

[Left Coast]

They are not the same. So for the fact that logic applies to thinking, it doesn't logically follow that logic applies to things.

P1: Logic is in the mind.
P2: Objective reality in itself is something else as it is independent of the mind.
Therefore logic applies to objective reality.

As it stands it is an invalid.
To save it you have to make at least one sound premise

Again...no.

Your distinction between mental concepts and external objects is contingent on the law of non-contradiction. So your position that logic doesn't apply to external objects is itself dependent on logic. It is literally self-defeating.

Do you see yet?

 

[Left Coast]

We are not talking about your experiences of external reality. We are talking about external reality independent of your experiences. You keep treating those 2 as the same. With logic they are not. The one is to you and the other is independent of you. That is with logic not the same.
Now what the formal idea of independent of you is other than independent of you, is unknown, because it is independent of you and since logic is in your experiences and mind, you can't know if there is logic independent of you.

The very argument you're making that logic does not apply to external reality is itself contingent on logic. It is self-defeating.

 

[PureX]

Then you agree with me, it seems. Right now, at this moment, my pen is either longer than three inches, or it isn't.

No, I don't agree. The statement both is and is not true depending on the criteria for truthfulness being applied. If we share that criteria, we will likely agree on it being true via that criteria.

No actually, it doesn't. Whatever length you pick, the statement remains the same: my pen is currently longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

note: currently.

You are trying to assert YOUR criteria as absolute. It's not.

The pen's ownership does not change its length.

It changes the truthfulness of the statement.

No

, the statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously, in the same way.

Of course it can. That's what relativism is all about. What is observed/experienced depends on the observer's relative perspective.

Again, this is basic logic. Yes, obviously any statements truth or falsehood is contingent on what those terms mean and the condition of the things being discussed.

It's not contingent of what the terms means. The terms mean what they mean. It is contingent on the criteria for truthfulness being applied to the statement of truth.

That doesn't change the basic logical principle at work. Either my pen is longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

That statement is not logical.

 

[Left Coast]

Either my pen is longer than 3 inches, or it isn't.

That statement is not logical.

No, denying that statement is not logical.
The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental concept in logic.

If you can't grasp this or don't agree with it, there's nowhere for the conversation to go. We might as well argue in gibberish.

X7sg238d7dh2ueudh di2uevsisie7???!!!

 

[Vinayaka]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

Depends on which component of the world you're talking about. Life skills and how to apply them, emotions, social structures, I'm not so sure. The physical sciences are certainly the best way to understand the physical. But the world is more that the physical.

 

[Left Coast]

Depends on which component of the world you're talking about. Life skills and how to apply them, emotions, social structures, I'm not so sure. The physical sciences are certainly the best way to understand the physical. But the world is more that the physical.

I'm sorry Vinayaka, but your reply is way too relevant to the OP.

Say something completely tangential that will derail us further! Perhaps your cat's favorite pastimes?