The first cause argument

[firedragon]

It *can* be inconclusive. It isn't always so.

Please quote a scientific theory that is established as fact. Let me analyse it to understand better.

Thanks in advance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..your belief the Universe had a beginning is your own personal assumption..

It's good enough for me.

One can say that "they don't know", but can still hold a belief.
Beliefs can be based on reasonable probabilities.

Can I state that I am categorically right about my religious beliefs? No.
I could be completely deluded, but don't believe that I am.

 

[Polymath257]

Please quote a scientific theory that is established as fact. Let me analyse it to understand better.

Thanks in advance.

The planets in our solar system orbit the sun.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe, maybe not.

Do you think philosophy gives facts?

Thanks for answering for others. Your answer is irrelevant. Maybe maybe not is not an answer. Probably because you dont understand the background of that particular conversation.

Philosophy does not give factual conclusions. It gives logical conclusions.

 

[firedragon]

The planets in our solar system orbit the sun.

Is that a scientific theory?

 

[Polymath257]

Is that a scientific theory?

Yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for answering for others. Your answer is irrelevant. Maybe maybe not is not an answer. Probably because you dont understand the background of that particular conversation.

Philosophy does not give factual conclusions. It gives logical conclusions.

Are those 'logical' conclusions conclusive?

 

[firedragon]

Yes.

Please provide the paper that calls it a scientific theory.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Are those 'logical' conclusions conclusive?

Please read up a little on what philosophy is and what logic is. Just like you not understanding science, you are misrepresenting philosophy and logic.

Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

Please provide the paper that calls it a scientific theory.

Thanks.

Well, it was first proposed *as a theory* by Copernicus (in modern science, at least). It was supported by evidence from Galileo and Kepler. And then it was unified by Newton.

It has not been in dispute for centuries, so no modern description will see it as controversial.

But it is a scientific theory that is a fact.

 

[Polymath257]

Please read up a little on what philosophy is and what logic is. Just like you not understanding science, you are misrepresenting philosophy and logic.

Thanks.

Exactly how do I misrepresent it?

I asked the question whether philosophical conclusions are conclusive. Can you give a *single* philosophical conclusion that is not in dispute by another philosopher?

You asked if science gives facts. The answer is yes, it does. It takes time, but we arrive at facts. The the planets orbit the sun is a fact that is the result of scientific investigation. So is most of chemistry (it is a fact that baking soda and vinegar will react and produce carbon dioxide). Or how about the atomic theory of matter?

Philosophy, on the other hand, only gives arguments. And they are always in dispute, never resolved.

 

[firedragon]

Well, it was first proposed *as a theory* by Copernicus (in modern science, at least). It was supported by evidence from Galileo and Kepler. And then it was unified by Newton.

It has not been in dispute for centuries, so no modern description will see it as controversial.

But it is a scientific theory that is a fact.

Please provide the scientific method applied on this "theory". And I am not talking about "first". We speak in todays terms. One day long ago before the discovery of lets say telescopes, many many things were theories or "philosophy". Some of these theories or philosophies will be dismissed based on later discoveries, like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Science changes and with change will discover more gaps. This is the philosophy of science.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Exactly how do I misrepresent it?

Find out.

 

[Polymath257]

Please provide the scientific method applied on this "theory". And I am not talking about "first". We speak in todays terms. One day long ago before the discovery of lets say telescopes, many many things were theories or "philosophy". Some of these theories or philosophies will be dismissed based on later discoveries, like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Science changes and with change will discover more gaps. This is the philosophy of science.

Thanks.

Yes, and Copernicus proposed a *scientific* theory about the motion of the planets. This theory was supported by the evidence obtained by Galileo, Tycho, and Kepler. This resolved the issues and disputes concerning this theory and the alternative proposals.

That is how the scientific method works.

Or, like I said, how about the atomic theory of chemistry? Proposed by Dalton to explain the observations, supported by many observations, and now considered to be a fact?

It is a fact that most things around us are made of atoms and that those atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. No new observations are going to deny those basic facts. And the fact that atoms are made from subatomic particles (like protons, neutrons, and electrons) is a very recently discovered scientific fact.

Don't forget that observations are theory laden as well. But it remains a fact that the Atomic theory has been proved to be true: the things around you are made of atoms.

Maybe you need to learn a bit more about the history and philosophy of science?

 

[Polymath257]

Find out.

I have done extensive reading in science and philosophy.

maybe you are the one that needs to 'find out'?

Or maybe you just need to give some details? What, precisely, do you think I am misrepresenting?

 

[firedragon]

I have done extensive reading in science and philosophy.

maybe you are the one that needs to 'find out'?

Or maybe you just need to give some details? What, precisely, do you think I am misrepresenting?

You misrepresent science, presenting theories as fact, throughout this thread which is based on a philosophical argument. That is misrepresenting science. Directly and "conclusively".

Can you please give some scientific answer to the questions of ontology and epistemology?

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and Copernicus proposed a *scientific* theory about the motion of the planets. This theory was supported by the evidence obtained by Galileo, Tycho, and Kepler. This resolved the issues and disputes concerning this theory and the alternative proposals.

That is how the scientific method works.

Or, like I said, how about the atomic theory of chemistry? Proposed by Dalton to explain the observations, supported by many observations, and now considered to be a fact?

It is a fact that most things around us are made of atoms and that those atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. No new observations are going to deny those basic facts. And the fact that atoms are made from subatomic particles (like protons, neutrons, and electrons) is a very recently discovered scientific fact.

Don't forget that observations are theory laden as well. But it remains a fact that the Atomic theory has been proved to be true: the things around you are made of atoms.

Maybe you need to learn a bit more about the history and philosophy of science?

No no. You misrepresented my post. Read it once more, understand it, and respond if you could.

Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

You misrepresent science, presenting theories as fact, throughout this thread which is based on a philosophical argument. That is misrepresenting science. Directly and "conclusively".

Can you please give some scientific answer to the questions of ontology and epistemology?

Thanks.

The scientific method is the the answer to epistemology. Ontology is defined by epistemology.

 

[Polymath257]

No no. You misrepresented my post. Read it once more, understand it, and respond if you could.

Thanks.

How do you think I misunderstood it? Please give details, not general dismissal.

 

[firedragon]

The scientific method is the the answer to epistemology. Ontology is defined by epistemology.

lol. Naught. Sorry mate. I cant engage with this kind of rhetoric.