Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?

Author: janesix ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 41
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,496
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles/
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @janesix
     it seems we are all just running around in circles/
    it is as it seems, circles are just easier to run in than squares.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    I think the discordian mantra reveals both something about intellectual masturbation(philosophy) and even the nature of creation itself.

    Note that The Ultimate Reality, being The Uncreated, is distinct from creation.



    "All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense."


    It should be obvious that many of the armchair atheist philosophers around here struggle with the all affirmations are true in some sense, because then they would have to admit that God is true in some sense.


    Really though, God is The Truth in every sense.





  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 444
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    "Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?" Not at all, just the same shit repackaged and resold. Everyone thinks they know something nobody else does. I used to think I did. But then I realized what I thought was a new idea or way of thinking was thought of, done/tried and abandoned dozens if not hundreds of times over thousands of years. 

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    It has been concretely confirmed through philosophy that humans can philosophize.




  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @janesix
    I'm quite willing to admit that phylosophy is mostly useless crap. While endlessly fascinating it rarely provides actionable data (which is generally provided by science).
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @janesix
    Yes, accurately predicting the Higgs-Boson using pure mathematics. 

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
    Science is a method. A baby is using the scientific method when it discovers it's own toes, then through experimentation discovers it can make them wiggle. It continues to use this method until it has done the experiment until the baby can be reasonably certain that their toes will move every time. Babies do not operate under philosophical frameworks ergo none is necessary for the application of the scientific method.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Let me know how much we can know about anything assuming we have no epistemological framework.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    Depends on how you define "concrete" "confirmed/denied" "figured out". 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    We can know nothing with certainty but an epistemology comes from the observation of the scientific method not the other way around so it really doesn't matter.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze @secularmerlin
    i don't know what 'epistemological framework' nor 'philosophical framework' mean.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @keithprosser
    I guess I'm not sure either. I know what epistemology and philosophy are though so I've just been operating under the assumption that the word framework is just needless window dressing. If that is not the case maybe someone will come along and let us know exactly what the difference is.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    It refers to the rules and boundaries that allow knowledge to be obtained. 


  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.

    An abstract epistemological framework must first exist before the scientific method has any use. Philosophy underpins the scientific method in its entirety.


  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    In order to apply the scientific method we must make certain assumptions, for example that observable reality reflects actual reality. We can never be truly certain if this basic axiom and so all knowledge has some degree of uncertainty. 

    If we accept reality at face value we can apply the scientific method and learn some things about reality. For example we can observe gravity. 

    However even accepting reality at face value does not give us any reason to believe in a being that cannot be demonstrated to be a part of that observed reality.

    There is a fundamental difference between "believing" in gravity and "believing" in some god(s).
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,440
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @janesix
    I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles
    Religion is philosophical.

    Politics is philosophical.

    If you're suggesting that Political and Religious leaders are all just running around in circles, I'd find it difficult to disagree with you.

    The task of "pure philosophy" is to identify logical incoherence in religion and politics.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,440
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.
    We know most things with less than 100% certainty.

    This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @3RU7AL
    This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
    I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,440
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @secularmerlin
    This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
    I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.
    Cogito, ergo sum.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    In order for knowledge to be possible an axiom must be knowably certain. Is the statement "observed reality probaly reflects actual reality" knowably certain?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    It is in fact only reasonably certain. You are again asking me to violate my epistemology. I will not.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @3RU7AL
    Cogito, ergo sum.

    That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,440
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @secularmerlin
    That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.
    Another example would be, "there is no such thing as nothingness".

    Generally these tautological or apodictic truths are rare, but they are important boundaries that demarcate our epistemological limits.