First off, lets not commit any ad hominems with all of this you're being silly nonsense. You have to demonstrate what your idea of silliness is and whether I fall under those terms, otherwise your statement is without grounds.
So, let us see if your criticisms are legitimate or not shall we. Ok you said in response to my statement on science..."All knowledge is part of a human invention. Some languages don't even make a distinction between invention and discovery. The simple point is that knowledge is not the thing in itslef, no ideas can exist outside of humans that use them, thus knowledge is wholly human dependant and it ALL exists in human praxis..." This is what is known as, in epistemology, as scientific realism. Your claim is that "no ideas can exist outside of humans that use them..." The conclusion is then that knowledge is wholly human dependent. This is fine if there were to be some justifier included in the argument. However, there isn't. So, all I can reply to this is, why not...or in other words, why can't ideas exist outside of humans which use them? Secondly, you exclude out of hand Platonic theories of ontology and epistemology without again arguing why it is Plato, or any other modern philosopher who subscribes to some theory similar to it, is wrong. You said, "Your assertion that you can 'ONLY prove or discover' betrays your out of date Platonic assumptions. Let me ask you where the "geocentric" hypothesis was waiting around to be discovered by the Greek astronomers? Or do you think it was invented to explain certain phenomena? And where in nature do straight lines, integers and perfect circles exist that are just waiting to be uncovered by the likes of Euclid?" Well to answer your question, to ask 'where' the geocentric hypothesis was is an unanswerable question. Very much like asking one what the color of a square is. For ideas do not have even a symbolic location. I understand you are trying to draw me into making the illogical statement that there is a metaphysical 'form' where theorists of the era 'discovered' the idea from. I doubt even Plato would have meant what you are assuming. Ultimately, the question is, as you rightly introduced indirectly, is where in nature are straight lines? A scientific realist would conclude that since such things are easier or more sensibly held to be a product of the mind, then they do not exist, serve as tools of knowing and thus knowledge, at best, is approximate and furthermore approximated by scientific analysis. However, someone such as myself who feels that it is logically tenable to hold to some form of Platonism, would respond with, "true there is some ambiguity as to the presence of a really existing straight line metaphysically, however, it is more reasonably to allow the ambiguity of this form of metaphysics than to make that statement that knowledge is approximating to the reality of a thing through scientific inquiry. For approximating necessarily implies some a priori knowledge of the thing in itself. And furthermore if there is some knowledge of the thing in itself, there are two types of knowledge working together; the scientific approximations and the comparison of the two a priori. The latter is unsubstantiated yet necessarily assumed, thus calling into question 'how' it is the approximation process is justified. This is a petitio principi, or begging the question, which is contrary to reason. Lastly, you made the statement that nature knows nothing and that this was so banal a claim and unscientific. But again to state that nature knows nothing is also question begging since you state it knows nothing and the reason it knows nothing because it is unscientific. And therefore to be scientific, and using the law of noncontradiction which if unscientific is false therefore scientific must be true, it must involve a non-conscious nature. So again you have not proven that nature is nonconscious at all. Rather you have justified the claim with another claim that is justified by the original...circular reasoning we call that in philosophy. And to be utterly staggered by my response says nothing to it being true or not...only to the convictions you have to your scientific realism...and this is emotion... On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > PS Do you believe in God? > > This is the only way I can account for your fallacy > > On May 3, 8:28 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: >> Your statement is based on a fallacy. No form of study---science or >> philosophy can purport to ''invent'' let alone create knew knowledge---you >> can only prove or discover its existence---ie you can NOT prove anything new >> outside the universal laws and elements of nature. Science is a tool to >> augment our inherent incapacities to fully comprehend what nature has >> already provided---and "knows". >> >> PROVE. OUR STATEMEN IS BASED ON This stament >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The thing you have to realise is that the big-bang theory IS accepted >> > by science; it was invented by science; from evidence provided by >> > science.philosophy >> > It does NOT confirm the story of the bible, though politically the >> > steady state was preferable in some ways. >> > The simple fact is that ALL astronomy contradicts the bible and the >> > medieval church. >> > The simple fact that the entire story of creation in the bible is >> > contradicted by science. >> >> > Now if you want to assert an intelligent design hypothesis then let's >> > hear it, but don't confuse a bad theory with political resistance of >> > some scientists to the ideology of fools that have tried to prevent >> > the march of science since Ockham. >> >> > On May 1, 6:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than >> > > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a >> > > supreme being. >> >> > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, >> > > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. >> > > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time >> > > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? >> >> > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the >> > > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. >> >> > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of >> > > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? >> >> > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the >> > > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The >> > > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly >> > > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that >> > > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the >> > > thought! >> >> > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just >> > > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. >> > > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting >> > > your theory into the science text books. >> >> > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth >> > > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain >> > > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical >> > > and ideological factors as well. >> >> > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists >> > > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe >> > > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared >> > > that WE are at the center of the universe. >> >> > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe >> > > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea >> > > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle >> > > seemed safely agnostic once more. >> >> > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a >> > > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of >> > > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between >> > > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of >> > > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying >> > > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the >> > > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, >> > > material or matter. >> >> > > But there is a problem. >> >> > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever >> > > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite >> > > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and >> > > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. >> >> > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be >> > > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an >> > > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. >> >> > > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external >> > > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure >> > > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. >> >> > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist >> > > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. >> > > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with >> > > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is >> > > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. >> >> > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, >> > > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean >> > > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the >> > > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be >> > > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires >> > > organization. >> >> > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their >> > > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, >> > > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. >> >> > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can >> > > produce intelligent designers. >> > > The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful >> > > creatures. >> > > Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, >> > > neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according >> > > to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign >> > > individuals. >> >> > > Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you >> > > MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. >> >> > > Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because >> > > there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not >> > > what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate >> > > what he must believe. >> >> > > If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff >> > > at that, instead of intelligent design? >> >> > > Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? >> >> > > -- >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Epistemology" group. >> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google >> > groups.com> >> > . >> > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// >> > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Epistemology" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google >> > groups.com> >> > . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. >> >> -- >> >> nubiaafrika.blogspot.com >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Epistemology" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- Never Look to a motionless face for memories, Life is found in the pace, not the chemistry Robert Lewis Henry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
