The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ophello on August 31, 2012, 03:47:36 AM
-
We've all seen the earth from the moon.
I don't see any way around it. How can an FES defend a flat-earth system when we've clearly seen our own planet from space several times?
-
Most flat-earthers believe that the moon landings, and sustained space flight in general, is patently absurd. Hell, the entire Apollo 13 mission reads like a hollywood script and rolled out just when the public started loosing interest in the program.
-
Yet we just landed on Mars...again...
To say something "reads like a script" is the absurdity, not the events themselves. Also, the public was NOT losing interest in the space program. I don't know where you got that idea.
The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. QED. End of debate. FES hypothesis is null and a willful fabrication of the truth being twisted into a lie to support a dying religion.
I'm beginning to wonder: is any amount of proof sufficient for you? Are FES people open to being proven wrong?
-
It's either a testament to mankinds limited imigination or the fault of NASA's ever weakening budget that Mars looks exactly like the Southwest United States.
Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.
-
Why does it matter that mars's geological features resemble the earths?
A tree looks very much like broccoli. But you and I both know that a tree is not broccoli.
Just because two things look similar does not mean they are the same. Basic gradeschool logic will help you understand this.
You say FES is falsifiable. I agree. And I think it is a tragedy that FES cannot change their view when evidence is presented. Debate implies persuasion. FES people cannot be persuaded, so what is the purpose of this forum, if not to enrage the public and incite anger?
-
It's a gathering place for like-minded people who believe in a flat-earth. I'm sorry if this enrages you, but we are in no way inciting public anger.
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
-
Mars looks exactly like the Southwest United States.
??? Not really, no. There are few places in the southwest where there are literally no plants, not to mention all the geography due to water erosion. The only similarity is that they're rocky and sandy.
-
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing. It really makes you think.
-
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing. It really makes you think.
Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.
-
Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.
And where in the desert would this be? Having lived in the southwest I can assure you that finding somewhere with no plants is still quite difficult.
-
Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.
-
Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.
Use your brain. Your posts are making less and less sense.
-
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing. It really makes you think.
Whatever, the moon is supposedly vastly closser than Mars; practically no distance in comparison. Yet it's rarely probed. The lunar surface, complete with stunning backdrops of a fabricated earth, is simply harder to reproduce in a studio than putting a few cameras on an RC car and dropping it in the desert is.
There's several rovers on the moon, and there are several satellites orbiting it. Nasa performed a kinetic bombardment of the lunar surface just a short while back to see if any water came out. The moon is always probed. It's not advertised as much because people have been there several times.
Because dusting an area with poison a couple months before shooting is beyond the concept or ability of NASA. Use your brain.
Poison may kill things, but it does not eliminate all traces of plant life. There would be something there. Your argument is quite ridiculous.
-
Ophello: permanoob or troll?
I think they are the only catagories on this site.
I have never seen the earth from the moon, I have seen pictures and videos of this though.
-
You aren't interested in the truth, are you? You invent a shoddy explanation for every piece of evidence and then sit back in your armchair, satisfied that you have made a compelling argument. You have not. You deny your own logic and reason (god-given talents) and instead rely on a belief system to draw a conclusion.
You're surrounded by people who want you to open your eyes to the universe. They are upset because you aren't arguing logically.
I don't have a problem with most religious beliefs because they at least allow room for the adoption of new knowledge. FES, however, wants to stay put exactly where they are -- forever. What kind of life is that? No growth? No new knowledge in an ever-changing universe? No exploration? No curiosity? Why would god give you a brain that is capable of drawing conclusions if he didn't intend for you to use it? Don't you have any curiosity for the universe?
You call the brave men and women who dare to explore the universe LIARS. They are not liars. They are intelligent, curious, brave human beings who deserve more from you than a petty dismissal of their efforts under the guise of a religious movement. You owe them so much that you take for granted.
"permanoob or troll" -- Neither. I'm a normal person who has faith in humanity's ability to learn new things and throw away old ways of thinking when they no longer serve them. I am not "new" at this. I am quite practiced in it, as are most people.
Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.
Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.
I don't understand what the purpose of this forum is if it is only filled with FES folks who cannot argue rationally or offer any compelling evidence to support their claim. If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest. But if you're going to make an internet forum out of it, be prepared to fail over and over again to convince anyone that your beliefs are worthwhile.
-
You aren't interested in the truth, are you? You invent a shoddy explanation for every piece of evidence and then sit back in your armchair, satisfied that you have made a compelling argument. You have not. You deny your own logic and reason (god-given talents) and instead rely on a belief system to draw a conclusion.
To whom are you addressing this statment?
You're surrounded by people who want you to open your eyes to the universe. They are upset because you aren't arguing logically.
These are not the only kind of people that surround "you".
I don't have a problem with most religious beliefs because they at least allow room for the adoption of new knowledge. FES, however, wants to stay put exactly where they are -- forever. What kind of life is that? No growth? No new knowledge in an ever-changing universe? No exploration? No curiosity? Why would god give you a brain that is capable of drawing conclusions if he didn't intend for you to use it? Don't you have any curiosity for the universe?
Who says when you have settled on a theory, there isn't any room fro growth. The Spherical earth is a theory accepted more or less everywhere. but, in regards to this, you would not claim there is not room for exploration.
You call the brave men and women who dare to explore the universe LIARS. They are not liars. They are intelligent, curious, brave human beings who deserve more from you than a petty dismissal of their efforts under the guise of a religious movement. You owe them so much that you take for granted.
The brave men and women you talk about, might, if it exists, have been duped by The Conspiracy.
"permanoob or troll" -- Neither. I'm a normal person who has faith in humanity's ability to learn new things and throw away old ways of thinking when they no longer serve them. I am not "new" at this. I am quite practiced in it, as are most people.
This was a general jibe at the community decorum. look around, you'll see what I mean: the troll accuse the permanoobs of being permanoobs, and the permanoobs accuse the Trolls of being Trolls. This is true by defintion of what each of those words mean on this forum.
I am happy to oblige in confusing you.
Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.
Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.
I don't understand what the purpose of this forum is if it is only filled with FES folks who cannot argue rationally or offer any compelling evidence to support their claim. If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest. But if you're going to make an internet forum out of it, be prepared to fail over and over again to convince anyone that your beliefs are worthwhile.
Pongo is the most lucid poster on the site, you will soon be blinded by his majesterial wit and lucidity. just you wait, this time next week you will be rooting for the FEers. Me, I pefer to remain ignorant to the truth of FE.
-
Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.
Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting the round-earth theory is not falsifiable?
-
Flat Earth Theory is, unlike its competition, falsifiable.
Herein we hit paydirt. Pongo states in no uncertain terms that Flat Earth theory is falsifiable. Add to that the myth that we never explored the Moon or Mars.
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting the round-earth theory is not falsifiable?
Round Earth reality is by definition not falsifiable.
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
-
Tatooine, as seen from my intergalactic space ship:
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070104003909/starwars/images/f/f6/Tatoooinefull.jpg)
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
-
So we can all agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable?
-
So we can all agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable?
No, I do not "agree that round-earth theory is unfalsifiable". I would, however, agree that FE'ers are completely unwilling to accept any experiment or data, falsifiable or not, that suggests that the earth is round.
-
Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.
-
Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.
Markjo has been trying this for years.
-
Markjo, no evidence you can present suggests that the Earth is round because the Earth is not round.
Oh, there's lots of evidence that suggests that the earth is round. Getting an FE'er to accept that evidence is the hard part.
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation. If we can observe them practically, then it falls into the realm of science, defined as distinct from philosophy because of the possibility of finding a definite answer to a question. For example "Is the universe expanding indefinitely?" is science, whereas "did a deity cause the expansion of the universe?" is philosophy. "Can our eyes tell us there is a table?" is science, whereas "Can we trust our senses that the table really exists?" is philosophy.
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation. If we can observe them practically, then it falls into the realm of science, defined as distinct from philosophy because of the possibility of finding a definite answer to a question. For example "Is the universe expanding indefinitely?" is science, whereas "did a deity cause the expansion of the universe?" is philosophy. "Can our eyes tell us there is a table?" is science, whereas "Can we trust our senses that the table really exists?" is philosophy.
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.
If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
-
Round Earth reality is by definition not falsifiable.
there is no definition I have seen where it says "Round Earth Theory: a concept that states that the earth is unalfsifiably round." I don't think you understand falsifiability, because it clearly is falsifiable, if not it would be classes as unscientific.
something is either unfalsifiable or unscientific. at least according to most philosophical and theoretical scientists.
here is a short list of popperians for your perusal
Karl popper (obviously)
Richard Dawkins (although he is slipping slightly into dogmatic science)
David Deutczh
Brian Greene
Stephen Hawking
Einstein (agreed with poppersl model)
etc
-
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.
I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.
"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
Truth has been relagated to a mere logical function, which has no relation to empirical findings. Truth does mean "not false". read more up on the philosophy of science everyone from the verficationists to popper to operationalism to paradigm theory to quine etc , all dispensed with the ability to know if something is certainly true, though we can know with more accuracy whether it is false, because you can apply scepticism to everything and question it, but if you take the opposite stance from skeptcism, you end up finding whatever you are looking for, which is called... selection bias.
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.
If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.
If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.
P -> Q
Q
P
false.
-
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing. It really makes you think.
According to RET, Mars is not "the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt [rovers] minutes after landing".
-
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe? Curious.
Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing. It really makes you think.
According to RET, Mars is not "the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt [rovers] minutes after landing".
Imagine that he's added "excluding earth" into the definition, sorry that you can't detect implied conditions like us normal people.
And Saddam claims I'm autistic... ::)
-
Imagine that he's added "excluding earth" into the definition
A fair point. While we're imagining that people said things they didn't, I'll just append "also, the Earth is flat" to his argument.
Another victory for FET!
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.
If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.
P -> Q
Q
P
false.
I don't know what that means. Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.
-
Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.
Ah, yet another case of "respond to what I meant, not what I said". Tell me, do you ever say what you mean?
-
Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.
Ah, yet another case of "respond to what I meant, not what I said". Tell me, do you ever say what you mean?
It has become what I said as I have added a coda, unless you've invented a time machine. Your post would only have been valid if posted prior to mine.
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
-
Do I really need to explain that science is not separate from philosophy?
-
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
-
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Hard to answer when you don't know what science is. Or are we going to use another unique TK definition lol.
What boggles my mind TK is your completely terrible idea of what philosophy is
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation.
I can not think of a single philosopher that would agree with you.
Thankfully "what TK considers" does not magically throw a discipline on its head or suddenly reinvent it.
If you comment on something, perhaps you should be familiar with the topic beforehand. But you didn't. As expected.
-
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Hard to answer when you don't know what science is. Or are we going to use another unique TK definition lol.
What boggles my mind TK is your completely terrible idea of what philosophy is
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation.
I can not think of a single philosopher that would agree with you.
Thankfully "what TK considers" does not magically throw a discipline on its head or suddenly reinvent it.
If you comment on something, perhaps you should be familiar with the topic beforehand. But you didn't. As expected.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why "science" and "philosophy" are two seperate sections on library and bookstore shelves? Why Albert Camus is referred to as a philosopher and Stephen Hawking is referred to as a scientist? Perhaps you'd like to give us an example of something non-abstract that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science"?
-
The same reason Sir Banks is referred to as a botanist and not a biologist. Does that mean he isn't a biologist?
You are making yourself look quite silly TK.
I'd highly advise not using observations of your local library bookshelves as a basis for arguments.
-
Do I really need to explain that science is not separate from philosophy?
Science intersects with philosophy, though in our modern world this intersection is getting smaller.
Philosophy in ancient Greece had the weight of science today.
Natural philosophy dealt with subjects only the mind could contemplate, but some of the concepts are still valid today, like the fact that everything is built with the same matter: man and rock for example. The ancient Greeks had no way to look into atoms but they knew this. With the evolution of science we were able to prove this.
Modern natural philosophy consists of theories that are spun from the results that science has brought up so far. Theories are useful, because they set a path for research to follow.
You could be skeptic about matter being made up of atoms, because you can't see atoms.
This society believes the Earth is flat and we live in a geocentric system. Its bright members refute claims that are only verifiable by a handful of people.
That the earth is round can only be proven with indirect methods involving observation, physics and mathematics. The problem is that if the indirect proof is rock solid, FE believers will drift away from the subject core and start babbling until the thread dies, and they call themselves undefeated.
But at least I will be satisfied ;D
-
The same reason Sir Banks is referred to as a botanist and not a biologist. Does that mean he isn't a biologist?
You are making yourself look quite silly TK.
I'd highly advise not using observations of your local library bookshelves as a basis for arguments.
Absence of response to what should be quite an easy challenge is noted.
I don't think I make myself look silly by having the opinion that modern science has diverged in its methods so far from other branches of philosophy that it can now be considered a seperate subject, and that in the modern era the common definition of philosophy no longer includes the scientific disciplines as it once did. Much as like in 1400 all children were referred to as girls, including the male ones. These days, it's no longer the case. Your argument is also like saying that whales and monkeys are the same thing because they are mammals, whereas my view is that they are more different in a practical sense.
Feel free to advise me what I should and shouldn't use as a basis for arguments, and I shall feel free to ignore you, yet I notice you have no explanation of why science and philosophy are in seperate sections on bookshelves.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
If you're being ultra picky, science could be considered a branch of philosophy if you classify it according to certain characteristics. However, in the modern world nobody does think of it like that any more.
If I'm SO wrong as Ichi makes out, how come he can't explain why science and philosophy are found on different bookshelves?
Remember, Ichi, it's not about whether or not you ever answer the question, it's about how your answers and my answers appear to an objective newbie who's just wandered in to look at the thread. Evading the question forever doesn't stop you from failing. Everyone can see you dodge and rely totally on semantics to make your point. Everyone.
-
Oh no. Why don't I answer the damning "bookshelf assortment" classic problem of philosophy that has plagued scholars for generations.
Seriously, stop acting as if library bookshelves are even remotely a valid basis for an argument. Absolute madness. Perhaps one day you can argue what is considered a part of the conspiracy or not by looking at how magazines are arranged in Walmart.
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science)
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html)
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science)
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html)
Annnnd ???
Are you trying to post random links or arguing realism and empiricism are not philosophies?
-
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science)
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html)
Annnnd ???
Are you trying to post random links or arguing realism and empiricism are not philosophies?
I am answering to your false claim: "Science is a branch of philosophy".
Apparently you're more interested in patronizing me that countering my arguments. Neither scientifical nor philosophical approach, my good Ichimaru G&T.
-
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)
-
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)
Why don't you read more wikipedia?
I quote : "Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics."
Which part did you get wrong?
-
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)
Why don't you read more wikipedia?
I quote : "Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics."
Which part did you get wrong?
And where in that is there anything saying science is not a philosophy?
-
As you said: "Science is a branch of philosophy."
Everybody disagrees with that. They are intertwined.
I know that as a regular FEer you always want to be right, but you really have to use your brain on this one.
-
You have yet to post anything claiming science is not a philosophy. IF you cannot point out something saying otherwise in your own freely chosen sources, why are you still arguing about it?
-
Oh no. Why don't I answer the damning "bookshelf assortment" classic problem of philosophy that has plagued scholars for generations.
Seriously, stop acting as if library bookshelves are even remotely a valid basis for an argument. Absolute madness. Perhaps one day you can argue what is considered a part of the conspiracy or not by looking at how magazines are arranged in Walmart.
At first I just thought you were doing the classic dodge routine but now I think you really don't understand the significance of what I'm saying.
Of course bookshelves are a valid basis for my argument, which is that these days, science and philosophy are considered divergent enough to be seperate subjects. Earlier in the thread, I explained the lines along which that division runs. You try to claim that the division does not exist and that my bookshelf question is irrelevent, completely missing the massive point that something as basic as a bookshelf classification reflects mainstream opinion of a word's definition.
In the 1500's the books would all have been on the same shelf. Nowadays, we make a distinction. It's part of the evolution of methods of critical thinking and part of the evolution of word usage.
I think deep down you know this but because you can't admit it because you've already taken a contrary stance, you thus refused to say WHY the books are now on different shelves. By looking down your nose at this simple question you have merely made yourself look cowardly, stuck up and pig-headed.
-
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.
If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.
P -> Q
Q
P
false.
I don't know what that means. Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.
what are you talking about? you said that philosophy probes the "unknown" then you asked for something false in philosophy, I give it to you, and now you change your mind and asked for something in "real world" terms which is clearly not what philosophy is about in your terms?
I'll give you the rundown
P -> Q (if P therefore Q) premise
Q (assuming the consequent) premise
P (deriving the antecedent) conclusion
if all cats are black then my cat is black = 1st premise
my cat is black = 2nd premise
therefore all cats are black = conclusion
False
-
You have yet to post anything claiming science is not a philosophy. IF you cannot point out something saying otherwise in your own freely chosen sources, why are you still arguing about it?
I think The Knowledge is wrong in this capacity. science is clearly a form of highly precise philosophical methods. though claiming it is just philosophy does in no way discredit how well constructed and usefull it is. in fact though science itself is a refinining of all knoweldge which derives as much usefull knowledge as it can from philosophy, mysticism, religion and law. science has many forms though
the rational method - spinoza, liebniz etc
there is the empirical method espoused by john locke
the critico-hypothetical method espoused by hume
the critico-deductive method (popper)
the logico-empirical method (the positivists)
the anarchist method (fayerebend) he espoused this in a book called against method
and kuhns which I don't really understand because it is more about the institution of science rather than its actual methodology.
-
I'm not claiming it is just philosophy. It is a very specific and useful form. The point I'm trying to get across to TK is that it is very obviously a philosophy and neccessarily so.
-
Successful derail from the God fearing, science loving ophello's topic of "everyone's seen the earth from the moon" (when in fact only between 15 and 20 people have), to "philosophy is not science."
I'll say my bit, Philosophy is not science, but some scientists are philosophers.
-
Successful derail from the God fearing, science loving ophello's topic of "everyone's seen the earth from the moon" (when in fact only between 15 and 20 people have), to "philosophy is not science."
I'll say my bit, Philosophy is not science, but some scientists are philosophers.
The coverse of this statament was actually the claim made, to wit, science is not philosophy. I disagreed and so my statement of this is as follows:
Not all philosopher's are scientists; but all scientists are philosophers.