(September 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 6:02 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: What? No, no it isn't true. No-one ever claimed it was. Everything is in a constant state of flux. Its impossible to know anything with absolute certainty let alone everything. I'm not even sure why you needed to ask, the answer would seem rather obvious.

"Omniscience of science"? "Scientism"? "Utopia"? Who on earth have you been talking to thats been teaching you this utter tripe? Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural". Its a method to learn more about the world we live in and one that has proven the most effective. Thats all it is. Until another one that proves more effective is presented thats the one we should use as its yielded the most accurate results using reproducible methods.

As far as I know it isn't possible to be omnipotent but do let me know if you have evidence to the contrary won't you?

I wouldn't even go as far as to place my faith in science as the best source of knowledge. Sure, it has led to great developments and nifty little gadgets. Nintendo? I mean come on, who doesn't love Nintendo?

But I think the greatest source of knowledge, the source that we ought to turn to instead of science is intuition.

I don't mean intuition as a part of science. I mean the practice of figuring things out about the world.

I know it sounds backwards. It sounds ludicrous. But there's more to it than that. Human intuition is by far the greatest contributor to the success of the species, its achievements eclipsing that of science by far.

"Nintendo" as the epitome of science, brilliant.
Intuition is at best a survival instinct that is prone to misfiring, unpredictable and varied in its results ranging from true to catastrophically false.
You cannot possibly compare it to a rational method of discovering more about the world we live in that has repeatedly yielded things like life saving medical technologies, advanced methods of communication, fast and safe transportation and incredibly complex methods of storing information... like the one you're using now. Even the clothes on your back were made using technologies to make the process easier and more efficient and you're trying to tell me that "intuition" isn't just on par, that it surpasses science?
I don't know whos been teaching you but I'd ask for my money back.

I mean can anyone here actually imagine what the world would be like had this method for discovery and reproducible results been discounted immediately? What would of happened had the first time bronze been produced it had never been produced again? In a world where evidence and reasoning are not anything to judge the standards of hypotheses validity by what logic should someone attempt to recreate a process by which they made a discovery? That is a scientific approach by its very definition, if you take away that then what is discovery if not just a random fluke to be hoped for and attributed to blind luck?

Intuition is not remotely as you describe it;

"in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
Noun:
The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning."

How far would "intuition" get us past the dark ages in terms of advancement? Not very.

(P.S. I'm still waiting on proof of an actual metaphysical assumption science makes as I systematically destroyed the rather absurd notion mathematics is one.
Starting to think you've just retreated from this one.)

Everyone was a new person at some point, I was emotionally disfunctional and nearly down right insane. Still insane though.

(September 4, 2012 at 4:03 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I wouldn't even go as far as to place my faith in science as the best source of knowledge. Sure, it has led to great developments and nifty little gadgets. Nintendo? I mean come on, who doesn't love Nintendo?

But I think the greatest source of knowledge, the source that we ought to turn to instead of science is intuition.

I don't mean intuition as a part of science. I mean the practice of figuring things out about the world.

I know it sounds backwards. It sounds ludicrous. But there's more to it than that. Human intuition is by far the greatest contributor to the success of the species, its achievements eclipsing that of science by far.

"Nintendo" as the epitome of science, brilliant.
Intuition is at best a survival instinct that is prone to misfiring, unpredictable and varied in its results ranging from true to catastrophically false.
You cannot possibly compare it to a rational method of discovering more about the world we live in that has repeatedly yielded things like life saving medical technologies, advanced methods of communication, fast and safe transportation and incredibly complex methods of storing information... like the one you're using now. Even the clothes on your back were made using technologies to make the process easier and more efficient and you're trying to tell me that "intuition" isn't just on par, that it surpasses science?
I don't know whos been teaching you but I'd ask for my money back.

I mean can anyone here actually imagine what the world would be like had this method for discovery and reproducible results been discounted immediately? What would of happened had the first time bronze been produced it had never been produced again? In a world where evidence and reasoning are not anything to judge the standards of hypotheses validity by what logic should someone attempt to recreate a process by which they made a discovery? That is a scientific approach by its very definition, if you take away that then what is discovery if not just a random fluke to be hoped for and attributed to blind luck?

Intuition is not remotely as you describe it;

"in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
Noun:
The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning."

How far would "intuition" get us past the dark ages in terms of advancement? Not very.

(P.S. I'm still waiting on proof of an actual metaphysical assumption science makes as I systematically destroyed the rather absurd notion mathematics is one.
Starting to think you've just retreated from this one.)

Intuition moved us from base animal instincts into civilization. I think that was a greater move than even clean drinking water and open heart surgery, let alone nintendo.

You're showing your a scientism, Drake. You have no idea of the role intuition played for human progress. Sure, it isn't perfect. But the things it got right, and the things it can get right have made us who we are. It's failures have led to future intuitive successes.

(September 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 4:03 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: "Nintendo" as the epitome of science, brilliant.
Intuition is at best a survival instinct that is prone to misfiring, unpredictable and varied in its results ranging from true to catastrophically false.
You cannot possibly compare it to a rational method of discovering more about the world we live in that has repeatedly yielded things like life saving medical technologies, advanced methods of communication, fast and safe transportation and incredibly complex methods of storing information... like the one you're using now. Even the clothes on your back were made using technologies to make the process easier and more efficient and you're trying to tell me that "intuition" isn't just on par, that it surpasses science?
I don't know whos been teaching you but I'd ask for my money back.

I mean can anyone here actually imagine what the world would be like had this method for discovery and reproducible results been discounted immediately? What would of happened had the first time bronze been produced it had never been produced again? In a world where evidence and reasoning are not anything to judge the standards of hypotheses validity by what logic should someone attempt to recreate a process by which they made a discovery? That is a scientific approach by its very definition, if you take away that then what is discovery if not just a random fluke to be hoped for and attributed to blind luck?

Intuition is not remotely as you describe it;

"in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
Noun:
The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning."

How far would "intuition" get us past the dark ages in terms of advancement? Not very.

(P.S. I'm still waiting on proof of an actual metaphysical assumption science makes as I systematically destroyed the rather absurd notion mathematics is one.
Starting to think you've just retreated from this one.)

Intuition moved us from base animal instincts into civilization. I think that was a greater move than even clean drinking water and open heart surgery, let alone nintendo.

You're showing your a scientism, Drake. You have no idea of the role intuition played for human progress. Sure, it isn't perfect. But the things it got right, and the things it can get right have made us who we are. It's failures have led to future intuitive successes.

Did you miss the definition of intuition or are you just dense? It is instinctual, pure and simple.
Do you ever actually read through your posts before sending them? Because I would be embarrassed to send a retort of that calibre.
Also I'd like to point out you are the one who used Nintendo as an example and it was a pitiful one that revealed quite alot about what you consider to be mankinds finer achievements.

What you describe is a system of trial and error which was the unintended and unconscious result of intuition and instinct. Science consciously adopts this as one of its methods of research in a very calculated and controlled way and analyses the results with great interest. Science is a superior method to making discoveries and leaps forward than intuition ever was. We have moved forward, its called progress.

"Scientism". Theres that word again. The idea anyone thinks any method universally applicable without having first seen the universe is absurd. Real scientists do not make claims about what they have no information on, they can only speculate and theorize on the unknown until more information is obtained on it. You don't know if science in its current state is applicable to the universe or not and neither do I. Probably not, we don't know everything. If we did science wouldn't be necessary as discoveries would be redundant. We only know it has so far been applicable to every discovery made and every technology produced. It has improved mankind's condition far more than anyone could measure.

You are making a snap judgement that there is something in the universe that has not got a rational, scientific explanation. You can not possibly know that there is and it is arrogant for you to presume you do when mankind as a whole knows so little about the universe it inhabits.

It becomes increasingly obvious with every post you make you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Now once again; give me an example of a metaphysical assumption science makes, keeping in mind we have confirmed mathematics does not fit the criteria, or retreat. Do not continue to insult the intellect of this forum through brazenly dodging the question.

(September 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Intuition moved us from base animal instincts into civilization. I think that was a greater move than even clean drinking water and open heart surgery, let alone nintendo.

You're showing your a scientism, Drake. You have no idea of the role intuition played for human progress. Sure, it isn't perfect. But the things it got right, and the things it can get right have made us who we are. It's failures have led to future intuitive successes.

Did you miss the definition of intuition or are you just dense? It is instinctual, pure and simple.
Yeah, discovering the methods for making fire, building structures, making clothing. That had nothing to do with moving away from our primitive origins. We could of done without that. Do you ever actually read through your posts before sending them? Because I would be embarrassed to send a retort of that calibre.

"Scientism". Theres that word again. The idea anyone thinks any method universally applicable without having first seen the universe is absurd. Real scientists do not make claims about what they have no information on, they can only speculate and theorize on the unknown until more information is obtained on it. You don't know if science in its current state is applicable to the universe or not and neither do I. Probably not, we don't know everything. If we did science wouldn't be necessary as discoveries would be redundant. We only know it has so far been applicable to every discovery made and every technology produced. It has improved mankind's condition far more than anyone could measure.

You are making a snap judgement that there is something in the universe that has not got a rational, scientific explanation. You can not possibly know that there is and it is arrogant for you to presume you do when mankind as a whole knows so little about the universe it inhabits.

It becomes increasingly obvious with every post you make you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Now once again; give me an example of a metaphysical assumption science makes or retreat. Do not continue to insult the intellect of this forum through brazenly dodging the question.

Wow. I didn't know you were arguing from the grade school dictionary.

Let me clarify my claim so that it fits within your dictionary paradigm. When I referred to intuition, I was referring to man's own mental faculty. Including your definition of intuition but not solely limited to it. We are talking about a priori and a posteriori reasoning as they are processed by the human cognition.

Ie, the human mind.

If I had to choose between the existence of minds but not science, or the existence of science but not minds, I would always go with the former, because the former is greater and naturally leads to science. But science on its own does not lead to minds. Science is just data collection and analysis guided by the mind. It's nothing special or worthy of worship.

Give up your science obsession. It's ridiculous. The human mind is where it's at.

(September 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Did you miss the definition of intuition or are you just dense? It is instinctual, pure and simple.
Yeah, discovering the methods for making fire, building structures, making clothing. That had nothing to do with moving away from our primitive origins. We could of done without that. Do you ever actually read through your posts before sending them? Because I would be embarrassed to send a retort of that calibre.

"Scientism". Theres that word again. The idea anyone thinks any method universally applicable without having first seen the universe is absurd. Real scientists do not make claims about what they have no information on, they can only speculate and theorize on the unknown until more information is obtained on it. You don't know if science in its current state is applicable to the universe or not and neither do I. Probably not, we don't know everything. If we did science wouldn't be necessary as discoveries would be redundant. We only know it has so far been applicable to every discovery made and every technology produced. It has improved mankind's condition far more than anyone could measure.

You are making a snap judgement that there is something in the universe that has not got a rational, scientific explanation. You can not possibly know that there is and it is arrogant for you to presume you do when mankind as a whole knows so little about the universe it inhabits.

It becomes increasingly obvious with every post you make you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Now once again; give me an example of a metaphysical assumption science makes or retreat. Do not continue to insult the intellect of this forum through brazenly dodging the question.

Wow. I didn't know you were arguing from the grade school dictionary.

Let me clarify my claim so that it fits within your dictionary paradigm. When I referred to intuition, I was referring to man's own mental faculty. Including your definition of intuition but not solely limited to it. We are talking about a priori and a posteriori reasoning as they are processed by the human cognition.

Ie, the human mind.

If I had to choose between the existence of minds but not science, or the existence of science but not minds, I would always go with the former, because the former is greater and naturally leads to science. But science on its own does not lead to minds. Science is just data collection and analysis guided by the mind. It's nothing special or worthy of worship.

Give up your science obsession. It's ridiculous. The human mind is where it's at.

I didn't know you had such a disdain for the English language that you needed to re-appropriate words with your own definition for your own ends.

Why do you think thats even a choice you have to make? It seems to me your projecting your own struggle with your inadequacies onto this forum. Also, where did this even come from? When did instinct become the finer quality of having a mind? Who was even comparing science to the human mind before you unleashed that rather poorly worded bout of verbal diarrhea upon this thread? This is sheer nonsense which your spouting to convolute this discussion with things that have not even entered into it.
Do you honestly think anyone here is stupid enough not to see through that?

First you were claiming science makes metaphysical assumptions and then tried to change the definition of mathematics to fit this. Then you were claiming a quality of base, primitive instinct to be of more import and relevance than a systematic method that has produced more discoveries and more boons to mankind than I could list on this thread. These ideas are preposterous and you have not backed either up with anything other than your own severely biased opinion and a few misquoted philosophical lines of reasoning that don't even make claims anywhere near as ambitious or ignorant as the ones you have been and are making.

You have failed to back up every claim you have made to the point I would be too ashamed to reply if positions were reversed. I have debated with intelligent people using complex and interesting lines of philosophical enquiry backed up with real-life examples and I would definitely not count you among them.
You are precisely the kind of idiot that gives philosophy a bad name and I think you should be rather ashamed of the woefully inadequate defence you put up of your laughably ill thought out claims.

I will allow your poorly veiled retreat, we are done here.

Bro, you sound butthurt. You're more interesting in personal attacks than actual claims.

My point was that science isn't all that perfect road to utopia it's made out to be. A part of that argument was the claim of metaphysical assumptions. I pointed out two assumptions: The assumption of logic and mathematics, and the problem of induction.

You haven't shown me why these two are wrong. I'm still waiting to hear why you disagree. Give me something substantial. All I'm seeing is Hoodie McGee.

(September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Bro, you sound butthurt. You're more interesting in personal attacks than actual claims.

My point was that science isn't all that perfect road to utopia it's made out to be. A part of that argument was the claim of metaphysical assumptions. I pointed out two assumptions: The assumption of logic and mathematics, and the problem of induction.

You haven't shown me why these two are wrong. I'm still waiting to hear why you disagree. Give me something substantial. All I'm seeing is Hoodie McGee.

Oh trust me, we're not in the same gene pool. I addressed your claims repeatedly and you responded with deflection everytime and then you retreated.

No-one was claiming anything like what you just typed. You are responding to a proposition only you have voiced. Also an assumption isn't an assumption if it has evidence to back it up. This has been voiced repeatedly but it has failed to penetrate that thick, balding neanderthal skull of yours.

In-short you are an imbecile who came here expecting that his cheap Jersey Shore rip-off take on what little philosophy he knows would stand-up to speculation and you were wrong. Repeating to yourself over and over that you are right doesn't change that.

Deal with it.

(September 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Bro, you sound butthurt. You're more interesting in personal attacks than actual claims.

My point was that science isn't all that perfect road to utopia it's made out to be. A part of that argument was the claim of metaphysical assumptions. I pointed out two assumptions: The assumption of logic and mathematics, and the problem of induction.

You haven't shown me why these two are wrong. I'm still waiting to hear why you disagree. Give me something substantial. All I'm seeing is Hoodie McGee.

Oh trust me, we're not in the same gene pool. I addressed your claims repeatedly and you responded with deflection.

No-one was claiming anything like what you just typed. You are responding to a proposition only you have voiced. Also an assumption isn't an assumption if it has evidence to back it up. This has been voiced repeatedly but it has failed to penetrate that thick, balding neanderthal skull of yours.

In-short you are an imbecile who came here expecting that his cheap Jersey Shore rip-off take on what little philosophy he knows would stand-up to speculation and you were wrong. Repeating to yourself over and over that you are right doesn't change that.

Deal with it.

Typical irrational atheist. Full of ad hominems, not a single rational argument.

(September 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Intuition moved us from base animal instincts into civilization.

Oh, did it now? When was that? Care to flesh this one out?