Aren't you tired....
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Notice that you are using a very different system to determine the probability of me having more than one head; than the system you are using to estimate the probability of the existence of a deity. It is special pleading/double standard.
In what way is it different? The end conclusion is that you can assign an arbitrary probability to an arbitrary number of unproven propositions, so all I did was pick a number that I liked.
M. V. Reeves - "so all I did was pick a number that I liked"
I don't have anything else to add. You summed it up nicely here.
The cat in the box is both dead and alive.
So, do you hold that belief and knowledge are the same thing? Can one say they do not believe something and yet do not have knowledge of its existence?
She's whipped out Schroedinger on us. Evacuate the area!
You need to specify how the knowledge was gained to define it apart from belief.
It both does and does not smell like fish. Schrodinger's cat was used to argue the nature of observable states in the context of quantum mechanics, not in regard to the philosophy of science. His system is characterized by its reliance upon postulates not assumed in the field of philosophy of science.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are science and philosophy not two different, unrelated things?
Wikipedia can begin to answer that question for you. Beyond that, I leave you to the great polymaths of old.
Science and philosophy have a common history. Just like astrology and astronomy have a common history. Like alchemy and chemistry have a common history.
At one point they were the same, but they are very different now. Of course the philosophers will violently disagree with this, since they want the credibility of science, without the rigour.
It's no wonder you think that philosophers will disagree with your viewpoint, as you haven't even pointed us at a source.
How about the source you suggested:
"From classical antiquity through the 19th century, science as a type of knowledge was more closely linked to philosophy than it is now and, in fact, in the Western world, the term 'natural philosophy' encompassed fields of study that are today associated with science, such as astronomy, medicine, and physics."
That science and philosophy are separate does not imply that they are not connected profoundly.
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. "
The "foundations, methods, and implications of science" sound pretty important to me, with respect to science as a concept.
We should have a Wiki war.
philosophy of science is not science.
To quote Feynman: “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
I think that sums it up well.
Well, I would certainly hesitate to glorify Feynman for his literary skills by quoting him in the future, based on that quote; by analogical alignment, he seems to have unwittingly compared scientists to birds and the philosophy of science to a science, contradicting, and, in my subjective literary opinion, damaging, the otherwise (ordinarily) clever delivery system he uses to convey his intended message.
. . .
"The philosophy of science is not science." - You
That is a true statement. However, the philosophy of science is largely responsible for determining what is considered to be a science, so the philosophy of science is only necessarily philosophy as opposed to science in the sense that those who most greatly contributed to it decided to consider it as such, not because its status as philosophy or science is debatable external to itself. I imagine that as a result, it would not be logically possible to call the philosophy of science philosophy, nor science, as to do so would (again, I imagine) induce (a) paradox(es) therein.
Moreover, I did not propose that the philosophy of science is a science; I implicitly proposed that it is just as valid, and, as a result of its simple, concise, and formal style as a school of thought, self-consistent than much of science today. I am willing to redact the latter of the two propositions compounded in this statement if you do not agree.
So in short, in ubiquity, and in practical terms, I agree with you in saying that the philosophy of science is not a science. But I feel that you did just kind of make Feynman look stupid, though it is his own voice that discredits his intelligence.
Nyarlathotep - "Of course the philosophers will violently disagree with this"
I rest my case.
So you redact your proposition? After all, this is not a court of law. We have no jury by which to needlessly make subjective what was once objective. Only logic stands between us, and, if you elect to cease to argue after I have rigorously disproven your greater propositions, then let it be known that they are false and defenseless until such time as they are revived.
I said philosophy and science are different. You agreed.
I said philosophers would disagree, which you also (paradoxically) managed to do.
I got nothing more to add.
MVReeves : "Moreover, I did not propose that the philosophy of science is a science; I implicitly proposed that it is just as valid, and, as a result of its simple, concise, and formal style as a school of thought, self-consistent than much of science today."
"just as valid" for what purpose? Obviously not as a tool to discover the workings of the material world. What philosopher has discovered any fact about nature using only philosophy?
Since logical validity does not imply any practical orientation, I am unsure of how to answer your first question; it seems to be malformed. As for the second, I thought that it seemed clear that by how philosophy and science are defined apart lends itself to the idea that it is not logically possible to prove anything about nature with philosophy alone (just as it is not logically possible to logically prove anything not directly observed, without philosophy). I suspect that you are attempting to challenge a claim that I did not or did not intend to make.
M. V. Reeves,
Your view that a benign god has a 50/50 odds is a knowledge claim that requires every bit as much support as saying that the odds are 90/10. It's not a proper substitute for not knowing. On the other hand, if that's just your way of saying that you feel either possibility is equally open, then your opinion is duly noted. There is no point in us taking that further unless you turn it into a factual argument.
Sir, you are only hedging your bet. You might as well say that I hope aliens land on planet earth to teach us the meaning of life and elevate us to a higher plane of existence. There is no benevolent intelligence that functions outside the laws of nature.
Humans made up those fairy tales to satisfy their curiosity about what they saw happening around them. Most of those natural events frightened them. It is logical to want whatever invisible force is making the wind blow down your house or the water rise and wash away your crops, to be on your side. Those days of ignorance are over. It is time to put away those irrational beliefs. The continuous excuses to support an invisible friend are just that. Once a logical solution or answer comes along from the scientific community to refute the former reasons for belief, the religious community comes up with another illogical, irrational reason why there is a god and why we must believe.
Playing devils advocate is only supposed to facilitate others to think rationally and consider all sides. I have considered the side of an invisible friend. I have concluded it only exists in the psyche of humans brains. The soul does not exist, it is a function of the brain. The idea of a benevolent intelligent being living outside the laws of nature is just that. An idea. A failed idea, at that.
"not a theist directly implies atheist," (Charvak) is invalid by the fallacy of false dichotomy by failure to jointly exhaust such that agnosticism lies in counterexample. M V Reeves
Atheism is by definition doubt or disbelief in God. Agnostics "who do not know" are unwittingly atheists as well. Its not that we wish to include people amongst our ranks as we need bolstering. Its just the nature of religion.
Religion demands absolute blind belief. If you lack it you are not part of it. You cannot be a muslim or christian etc without having faith. If you lack faith you are not part of them. That is their rule. not ours.
Now about your nonsense on accepting one half of the burden of proof. If I say that you owe me 1 million dollars and are required to pay up in the next one hour will you accept one half of the burden of proof to show that you don't or rather will you demand mine. What if I were to say that just because I do not have proof that you owe me does not mean that you do not owe me, you could still owe me.
Proof is the burden of the claimant plain and simple.
Your no different than a thiest from what i can sense. Have you said any insults? Have others said insults? If i have offended i have stated thats my bad but i am not a thiest nor athiest were i am attached to no label and a free spirit
and leave the unproven as possible.believer in science, were you are by definition close minded in beliefs and close the chance of unproven concepts to even be considered,i do not think that is wise but just not smart.odds has always proven to be wrong at times and unreliable you can loose a game with 99.9999% chance of winning remember that smart guy.
Oh, for the love of Pete! Would you go on about your way already!?
WHAT YOU MEAN THIS POST WAS ABOUT ME!
Good for you! Now exit, chased by a bear.
I do what i want
OK then. Don't exit, and get mauled by the bear.