Who hear thinks..........

[Revoltingest]

I avoid thinking whenever possible.

I think you're right.

 

[Madsaac]

Science is absolutely awesome, but it certainly has bounds.

No, there are problems in philosophy that science haven't solved today.
In short they are here for the practice of being a human:

Science knows no bounds? Dang. Actual scientists must be cringing reading that. You have as much faith in science as theists do in God! Reminds me of the Bible: "With [Science] nothing is impossible."

Maybe I should have been clearer, future science.....is boundless

Without science, it seems we have reached an end point with religion and philosophy's explanation of humanity.

So thank goodness science can take us much much further and add to our philosophical discussions.

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe I should have been clearer, future science.....is boundless

Not seeing how this is any less a faith position.

Without science, it seems we have reached an end point with religion and philosophy's explanation of humanity.

No serious religious person (much less philosopher) wants to get rid of science. You have a false dichotomy in your head.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe I should have been clearer, future science.....is boundless

Without science, it seems we have reached an end point with religion and philosophy's explanation of humanity.

So thank goodness science can take us much much further and add to our philosophical discussions.

As for the bold, how do you know that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe I should have been clearer, future science.....is boundless

Without science, it seems we have reached an end point with religion and philosophy's explanation of humanity.

So thank goodness science can take us much much further and add to our philosophical discussions.

I disagree. I think our ethics have improved. We got rid of legalized slavery, thanks to the efforts of Christian abolitionists. We no longer accept war for the sheer gain of land and resources. We prosecute those guilty of domestic violence, even if the spouse refuses to press charges. When kids say they have been abused and molested, we no longer smack them and tell them to stop lying. You get the idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At one's personal expense. You seem to have missed the point.

I did not miss the point at all.

Nothing about "personal expense" takes away from the points I made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suppose I was including that as part of trusting your gut.

Your "gut" is often wrong though.

I do think self reflection does help us improve in terms of those behaviors that we consciously want to cultivate. But it remains the case that in the immediate instance a moral dilemma occurs, our response is instinctual, not rational.

Well yeah, sure, if you have to make split second decisions, then it's not like you have a choice.
But even then, your mind will still go to try and minimize harm.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not what I did.

How is that not what you did?

Sounds exactly like what you did.
If tomorrow you observe things that don't fit that conclusion, and thus make you change your mind, or you observe things that further confirm your conclusion, how is that not "testing your conclusion against future data"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is that not what you did?

Sounds exactly like what you did.
If tomorrow you observe things that don't fit that conclusion, and thus make you change your mind, or you observe things that further confirm your conclusion, how is that not "testing your conclusion against future data"?

I ran no tests. I gathered no data. I just got outside of the Evangelical bubble and ended up meeting a bunch of gay people. Amd I got to a point many years ago where I don't consider it anymore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I ran no tests. I gathered no data. I just got outside of the Evangelical bubble and ended up meeting a bunch of gay people.

That's gathering data.

Amd I got to a point many years ago where I don't consider it anymore.

Because you drew a conclusion from the data you collected.

 

[Madsaac]

As for the bold, how do you know that?

Because of how science has developed since we can remember, it's always growing and we are always discovering new things because of science....it knows no bounds.

I should say when I say science, I include all methodological studies, especially psychology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because of how science has developed since we can remember, it's always growing and we are always discovering new things because of science....it knows no bounds.

I should say when I say science, I include all methodological studies, especially psychology.

So you have solved the induction problem? How have you done that?

 

[Madsaac]

No serious religious person (much less philosopher) wants to get rid of science. You have a false dichotomy in your head.

I disagree. I think our ethics have improved. We got rid of legalized slavery, thanks to the efforts of Christian abolutionists. We no longer accept war for the sheer gain of land and resources. We prosecute those guilty of domestic violence, even if the spouse refuses to press charges. When kids say they have been abused and molested, we no longer smack them and tell them to stop lying. You get the idea.

Yes you are both right, I was thinking that in the future, methodological studies, including scientific, social or psychology will play a larger role in understanding the best way to approach ethical and social issues, like the one you mentioned, domestic violence.

Do you agree, they have taught us so much and will only teach us more?

 

[Madsaac]

So you have solved the induction problem? How have you done that?

No, I haven't but what about inductive or deductive reasoning, it's one of these anyway. Knowing that humans are 'discovering/learning more' is a logical process based on experiences, observations, and facts to evaluate a situation and make a general assumption, that being, we will continue to learn.

It's quite obvious really, dont you think we will continue to learn?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I haven't but what about inductive or deductive reasoning, it's one of these anyway. Knowing that humans are 'discovering/learning more' is a logical process based on experiences, observations, and facts to evaluate a situation and make a general assumption, that being, we will continue to learn.

It's quite obvious really, dont you think we will continue to learn?

That is not knowledge and it is thus not a fact that we will continue to learn.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes you are both right, I was thinking that in the future, methodological studies, including scientific, social or psychology will play a larger role in understanding the best way to approach ethical and social issues, like the one you mentioned, domestic violence.

Do you agree, they have taught us so much and will only teach us more?

No one is denying that using science has taught us a lot about the natural world, and I have no doubt it will continue to do so.

Outside its purview, science will continue to not be applicable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's gathering data.


Because you drew a conclusion from the data you collected.

I didn't collect data, I didn't compare it, I didn't test or retest, I wrote nothing, I did absolutely nothing involving science. None at all. I just did what people have been doing since we were people that's had a noted effect for helping people get over their prejudices.

 

[Hawkins]

Yes or No answers only please.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?
Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

Who is the best to know whether you ever had eggs before the age of 2? It's not science but the testimony of your own mom. Your obssession of science may turn out to be a joke. Science can only be accurate when dealing with something repeatable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I did not miss the point at all.

Nothing about "personal expense" takes away from the points I made.

Actually, it does.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your "gut" is often wrong though.

Of course. But there are decisions we have to make in life for which we do not get proof from either science or logic. In such cases, our intuition (even though imperfect) is the best source to base those decisions on.

Well yeah, sure, if you have to make split second decisions, then it's not like you have a choice.

Yes, of course. But it is very fascinating to me that even though the snap decision on a moral decision is not conscious, once we make that decision and the conscious mind becomes aware of it, that conscious mind will then fabricate all sorts of "reasons" why we made that "choice."