Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:39 pm
@failures art,
Agreed that such position although recommended is hard to sustain as a truthful orientation from those who usually where it...
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
what? I'm having difficulty understanding your posts.

A
R
T
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:49 pm
@failures art,
I meant that is easier to achieve a wrong then a right when it comes to knowing...so concerning the natural evolution of a theory one should start from assuming that something is right until proven wrong...
Oh and this idea its not even fresh news ! Remember Karl Popper ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I have a different theory; it's wrong until proven right.
amer
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:53 pm
@fresco,
Oh dear. You are trying on that tact. Your first statement is completely worthless as an intellectual statement as it is simply a wild irrational allegation intended to discredit. It can be applied to anyone or any argument and is designed to discredit not the argument but the entire philosophy of the argument, the basis on which it is made, and the intention with which it is made. A McCarthyite witch hunt no less.

In the philosophical world it is a total playing field. The onus of proof is as much on the theist as it is on the atheist. If you believe otherwise, then you are placing yourself on elevated grounds and simply stating that you have a self evident truth. You are stating an axiom, which is unproven and unprovable but you believe it is more than this.

The burden of proof falls on whoever puts forward a theory. It is this error that reductionists materialists make whereby they introduce higher level concepts as 'self evident' truths one on top of another believing they are constructing a self consistent rational theory. But when viewed under the scrutinizing unforgiving lens of philosophical construct, you can see that all they have succeeded in doing is placing one turtle on top of another all the way down!

I am quite happy to continue this debate with you but I will ask for sincerity and rationality from you. Its not possible to continue a debate such as this unless a dialectic is established. And I do not wish to speak standing on the ground while you stand on your elevated alter of self proclaimed truth.

Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 04:40 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Suppose we leave a tape recorder near the tree, and when the tree has fallen we retrieve the tape-recorder and listen to the tape. What do you think we'll hear?


Falling trees don't make sound. Even tape recorders don't make sound. Ears make sound.

Sound is variance in the density of molecules moving through a medium. Ears allow for a range of frequencies to be received and their signals to be processed and interpreted in our brain. However, ears are simply a bit of cellular geometry. Some sounds we feel in our chest cavity because it's harmonic resonance is such that it allows for us to "feel" it. What we feel in our chest, and what we feel in our ears is no different.

My point is that when a tree falls, it most definitely makes sound. Sound exists whether it is processed and interpreted.

I'd agree that if a symphony falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it make music, is a valid question. I'd say the answer is no to music, but certainly yes to sound.

A
R
T

There is a picture: A symphony of nobodies... No, you take first chair... No, you take second chair, no, you take third chair.... Could get confusing... What is the sound of nobodies playing???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 04:59 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

No. You don't get it. "Morality" and "judgement" are linguistic epiphenomena of "human observers". In cosmological terms man has only been around for the last millimetre of a whole toilet roll representing the age of the earth, yet his "morality" and "judgements" have hitherto involved him in potentially species destructive activities. Any re-dress of that threat needs to de-construct any a priori (theistic) significance we might attach to those concepts by "scientifically" examining the social macro structures which reify them.

Nonsense, and I mean it, literally nonsense... Not one person in a million thinks in the terms you put forth, and you have put forth a lot of them, and such stupid, high falutin talk only confuses the very people who most need a moral compass, and understanding of the thing... Philosophy has been dealing with these issues with recognizable terms for something near twenty five hundred years, and there comes freso with his box of confusion to clear things up... Make your effin point... Express yourself, translate it into your own words... If you give me some crap you read in a book once it only makes me think of your brain as a book, capable of expressing only what another writes into it... What is the meaning and judgement on your part of what they say... Because, quite honestly, it is not one or two books that have went into making my thoughts and conclusions, but all of them down to Dick and Jane...

In any event, I am certain the words are morphs or morphems... Forms, to you...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:00 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

How do you know apart from your perception that physical reality exists?

Good question since the tools of all science are extension of the human senses...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I have a different theory; it's wrong until proven right.

You are a towel... Nothing is ever proved... Theories or supositions are either supported or unsupported... Things can be disproved pretty well, but that does not stop nutjobs from believing...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:20 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

north wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.


Quote:
it is not efficacy that philosophy comes into play at all but the interpretation of the empiricism of the evidence that does


Quote:
If you are suggesting that philosophy is a requirement for so-called "interpretation of the empiricism of the evidence" you have made no substantive argument to support such a claim, let alone to demonstrate said claim via empiricism.


it is the " attitude " of philosophy which I have always liked

the flexability of mind , to see things and include perspective from the outside of the disipline

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:45 pm
@Fido,
Do you mean to claim the scientific theory is never proven?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Oh dear...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I have a different theory; it's wrong until proven right.


I suppose that you can prove that. For unless you can, it's wrong.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:19 pm
@kennethamy,
Okay, I'll play your silly game. Name me one fact?
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I have a different theory; it's wrong until proven right.


such as

Quote:
I suppose that you can prove that. For unless you can, it's wrong.


hmmm......





0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Okay, I'll play your silly game. Name me one fact?


That you think that unless a theory can be proved it is wrong? That you have just asked me to name one fact?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:27 pm
@kennethamy,
Go back and re-read those posts again. You are confused.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:38 pm
to both kennethamy and cicerone

are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Do you mean to claim the scientific theory is never proven?

Absolutely correct... Wooo; first time to day... You are on a roll towelly...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:49 pm
@north,
north wrote:

to both kennethamy and cicerone

are you both saying that philiosophy is dead ?

If that were true, wouldn't that mean philosophy was on the beach some where, alive and well, catching some rays and sucking down a cold one??? Ask a philosopher; not a couple of pedestrians on the super high way of life...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Philosophy is Dead
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 07:10:18