On May 4, 2:54 pm, Enrique Fynn <[email protected]> wrote: > chazwin... > Let me get clarify some things... > Do you think that science invented gravity?
No, I think Isaac Newton 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 > > ... > > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
