| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who am I? |
| I am a soul. |
|
14% |
[ 3 ] |
| I am a biological machine. |
|
42% |
[ 9 ] |
| I am sometimes a soul, sometines a machine. |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| How the heck do I know? |
|
23% |
[ 5 ] |
| Please God, enlighten me! |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
 Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"Dasein ek-sists"
-Heideggar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MCSM
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote: |
"Dasein ek-sists"
-Heideggar |
That's rather subjective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets face it. You can't prove if we have a soul or not, so it is outside science. If you want to believe you have a soul so be it.
Pest2 science can only exist in the scope of what is falsifiable. Everything outside this is magical thinking. If the existence of a soul is provable, then science will find it. New ideas that are not falsifiable are not science. It is as simple as that. What ideas are you talking about which were not falsifiable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MCSM wrote: |
| Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote: |
"Dasein ek-sists"
-Heideggar |
That's rather subjective. |
Not according to him. He always substituted the terms 'subject' or 'object' with 'being-in-the-world'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCSM
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote: |
| MCSM wrote: |
| Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote: |
"Dasein ek-sists"
-Heideggar |
That's rather subjective. |
Not according to him. He always substituted the terms 'subject' or 'object' with 'being-in-the-world'. |
Sir, you need to eat more raisins and red meat. Or acquire a supplement of some sort. We'll discuss your spelling once you've been fortified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MCSM wrote: |
| Sir, you need to eat more raisins and red meat. Or acquire a supplement of some sort. We'll discuss your spelling once you've been fortified. |
There is help available. You'd best get cracking.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Lets face it. You can't prove if we have a soul or not, so it is outside science. If you want to believe you have a soul so be it.
Pest2 science can only exist in the scope of what is falsifiable. Everything outside this is magical thinking. If the existence of a soul is provable, then science will find it. New ideas that are not falsifiable are not science. It is as simple as that. What ideas are you talking about which were not falsifiable? |
Before we had ships that could travel around the globe, people speculated it was round and not flat. Were these speculations about the nature of the earth not science, despite that current science rendered those speculations "unfalsifiable"?
Einstein tells the world, "everything in physics is relative".
Skeptics say Einstein is crazy and what he is claiming is not science because (when he made the claim at first), it is not falisfiable.
Today, is "The theory of Relativity" a part of science?
There are many scientific theories that lie out of the range of falsifiability that are still science; that is, unless JMO is seeking to simply change the definition of science. What about Steven Hawking and his theory of the elyptical universe? We dont have the means to falsify that one, but its still science.
People liked Popper because 1) His writing was clear and concise and easy to understand 2) His ideas appealed to rigid-minded folks who liked to have a formula or a rule or maxim to govern everything in the universe.
Thank heavens we have some brilliant minded, scientific people in history who were able to think outside of the box of falsifiability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pest2,
all the scientific discoveries you've mentioned are falsifiable.
Falsifiability is a vital and essential part of science;p it's part of what makes science what it is. Any propostion that is not falsifiable is outside the relam of science and falls into the realm of mere speculation and idle wondering.
Think about it. If you can never, ever know whether the answer to a question is "yes' or "no," no matter how you investigate it, if it's unanswerable, (that's really what unflasifibale means), then you can pursue it forever and never advance your empirical knowledge of the universe by an iota. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
pest2,
all the scientific discoveries you've mentioned are falsifiable.
Falsifiability is a vital and essential part of science;p it's part of what makes science what it is. Any propostion that is not falsifiable is outside the relam of science and falls into the realm of mere speculation and idle wondering.
Think about it. If you can never, ever know whether the answer to a question is "yes' or "no," no matter how you investigate it, if it's unanswerable, (that's really what unflasifibale means), then you can pursue it forever and never advance your empirical knowledge of the universe by an iota. |
Sure, they're all (except for Hawking's) falsifiable NOW. But they weren't then. Did Chris Columbus have the capacity to test for the truth of the theory of relativity? No. Could the theory have been plausible in his time. Why not?
Alot of computer science/accountant-type people have this idea that the only meaningful questions out there are ones that can be answered with either yes or no. To these positivists, the only thing that matters, as you alluded to, is empirical knowledge and evidence. But only true genius can look beyond WHAT IS to what MAYBE.
Paradigm shifts in science, throughout history, usually occur in pattern by which at first there must be some "speculation," the truth of which is not falsifiable. I do hope you can see this.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
