View Profile fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 06:23 pm
No, you're still not with it. "Truth" is "what works"...i.e. gives successful predictions (or retrodictions). The key issue is that it is our will to predict which fornulates science. So "science" cannot logically explain "will".
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 07:03 pm
Did you mean that science can not logically explain why we choose to try to predict things?
View Profile fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:01 am
Correct.
"Scientific explanation" takes "prediction" as axiomatic. Axioms cannot be analysed by their own dependent systems.
0 Replies
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 07:30 am
So what is wrong with following science explanation as why we try to predict future.

Throughout the history different influences were changing leaving organisms.
Some of those changes resulted in creating organisms which were more or less interested in the ability to predict future. It seems that those that were interested and had capabilities in predicting future had good enough chance of surviving and this is why today we have organisms that are interested in predicting future. If will to predict future was something bad that would kill you on site today we wouldn'e have organisms that try to predict future.

So, conclusion is that we were programmed to have interest in predicting future by chance and that interest proved valuable in our survivale so we kept it simply by not dying because of it.
View Profile fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 08:51 am
It's wrong because you are not taking care with the word "scientific" . Karl Popper gives the criterion of "scientific" as "refutable in principle". Your statement is not. You cannot appeal to an evolutionary survival mechanism because "the future" is too vague a term to be applied to survival thereby avoiding refutability.

At this juncture, I am suggesting a break in our dialogue because I feel I am having to go over basic principles which you can read for yourself in any "Philosophy of Science" book. Why not read up on Popper for example, apply it to your pet term "programming", and see if it survives. Then maybe you can report back with a thread of your own.
0 Replies
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:59 pm
Quote:
Did you mean that science can not logically explain why we choose to try to predict things?


It can. It's because we like it. Pleasure principle.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 07:42 pm
vori1234 wrote:

Well I am sorry but I am not into philosophy.
I think philosophy is ability to create 500 hundered pages long book without saying anything but only making it look as it means something because sentences are grammaticly correct. . . .
LOL
I leave for a few weeks and see what happens?
  2  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 11:48 pm
vori evidently never studied Philosophy. He wouldn't be able to see his own shadow during mid-summer if his life depended on it. ROFL
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Do Christians believe in ghosts? - Discussion by chemist
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Superstition and the Internet - Discussion by jespah
Religion in abundence - Discussion by Pharon
Save Craven - Discussion by dan-E
If 'things happen for a reason' - Discussion by bandylu2
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Free Will
  3. » Page 38
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.35 seconds on 11/24/2009 at 09:36:13 Top End