chazwin... Let me get clarify some things... Do you think that science invented gravity?
Att; Enrique Fynn. -- Artificial intelligence laboratory Federal University of Uberlândia "Society, you're a crazy breed... Hope you're not lonely without me..." 2010/5/4 chazwin <[email protected]> > > Since you brought up Kant. I'll let him reflect upon your answer. > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the > existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately > and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the > perception as an effect of something external that must be the > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate > and direct perception … . > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > > On May 4, 1:02 pm, Robert Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wel, to best sum up our ideas, you have stated that, although you > > dislike labels, you are a Post Kantian. If this is true, then instead > > of trimming the tree branches of each other's plumage, let us start at > > the root. Kant found that all knowledge, like you stated, is human > > and thus within the mind. Outside the mind, the thing in itself is > > unknowable. However, there is at least one thing known about it, that > > it exists. So, my question to you is this, how do you know it exists? > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 7:49 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> You made gross the mistake of stating that "the big bang was invented > by > > >> science"---if science invented it, as you state then--the phenomenon > did not > > >> exist or happen---except a recent scientific invention---that is a > hopelesly > > >> line of thought. > > > > > What ever happened 13.4 billion years ago is unknown, Human take what > > > evidence they can > > > and invent an idea to save those appearances; they invent concepts to > > > explain what they discover. > > > The geocentric universe was invented; pholgistan was invented, > > > astrology was invented. They were > > > all invented and portrayed as self evident facts, just like you are > > > with the 'big bang theory'. One day > > > another scientist will invent a new theory to explain some more > > > observations. > > > You are confused in your conclusion, you say if science invented it > > > then the phenomenon did not > > > happen. I am not saying that I am saying that the thing called the > > > geocentric universe and the big bang > > > are inventions. They are contingent explanations which explain > > > phenomena which happened. > > > > > I was responding to your idea that no new knowledge can be made and > > > that we are only repeating > > > what nature (or is it god) "already knows". This is just a travesty of > > > the truth. > > > Nature knows nothing. > > > > >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:35 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > 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 are being very silly indeed. 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. > > > > >> > 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? > > > > >> > Nature knows nothing. The statement is so banal. WHere is its > > >> > consciousness? It is utterly unscientific. > > >> > Science is a model that is literally and practically invented by us > to > > >> > best fit or mimic that universe, but it is not > > >> > identical - it exists in a dialectical relationship with experience. > > > > >> > I am utterly staggered by your response!!! > > > > >> > ---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 > > > > >> > ????? Are you kidding? > > > > >> > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > 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%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://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.
