First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, I realised that after he reminded me of that rule, lol.

EvF

[northumbrian66]

Yesterday I received an email from Amazon saying my copy had been despatched. I cant wait to read it all. I'm an avid fan of his.

[Violet]

Actually... Dawkins got one thing slightly wrong (well, those philosophers did at any rate ). Things can only be proved by logic, and mathematics are some of the absolute BEST proofs in existence. What philosophy accomplishes that mathematics doesn't: is to answer why, or more often why not.

Those influential philosophers probably aren't existentialists.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Actually... Dawkins got one thing slightly wrong (well, those philosophers did at any rate ). Things can only be proved by logic, and mathematics are some of the absolute BEST proofs in existence. What philosophy accomplishes that mathematics doesn't: is to answer why, or more often why not.

Yeah well mathematics, although abstract, is more in line with the philosophy of science in that it works, it has practical application and so on, just like science but philosophy and metaphysics quite simply don't!

You see the thing is we need science, we (and science) need maths but there is no way that we actually need philosophy except in the sense that they already exist within those tow areas ... science and math work, why? Because the bridges stay up!

"Things can only be proven by logic"? In many ways your language alone leads me to think I'm right ... science never *proves* anything because NOTHING in science is ever held so absolutely that it is beyond challenge! Theists often make out that's a weakness but it's actually it's greatest strength because science goes where the evidence leads.

Now you may be thinking I'm a dinosaur and quite possibly that's true and I am well aware that philosophy can feed ideas into science where they can be subsequently tested but I have asked this question repeatedly with no satisfactory answer (which may well be just me) ... what has philosophy ever proven alone (without empirical testing)?

Kyu

[Violet]

You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together.

It is a bit like putting two and two together to get 4... neither has the full scoop, but each provide information that is necessary. Sciences tell what, how, when, and who. But they can never tell why. Why is there evolution? Tell me how it works, give me evidence that it works that way, show me how long it takes, and whom it effects... but with science: you can never state why.

Why must evolution be so? That is the crucial bit of evidence that creationists need before they will understand.

---

I think you mostly despise metaphysics... which is completely unrelated to philosophy... because (!)it is not based on logic(!)

[fr0d0]

Where do you stand on NOMA Sae?

[Kyuuketsuki]

You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together.

And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real.

Kyu

[Violet]

Where do you stand on NOMA Sae?

NOMA?

[leo-rcc]

Where do you stand on NOMA Sae?

NOMA?

Non Overlapping MAgisteria.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

[Violet]

You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together.

And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real.

Kyu

If one did not equal one, then the universe would rapidly become nothingness, or oneness. Shown here: 1=2, everything continuously multiplies until everything becomes a single mass. Shown here: 1=.5, everything divides into halves until it reaches the fundamental particles of the universe and disintegrates entirely. Therefore 1 must = 1. This proves why it is true in our universe. Beyond this... this proves why it is true in every universe preceding ours (i.e. Even if someone is playing us as a video game: they too fall under this rule.)

Logic only exists where this rule is true. That is why philosophy is too a science. Metaphysics go beyond logic... they are not compatible... because metaphysics must take place outside of logic. They are therefore pointless to discuss, as they have absolutely no application for us, and probably don't exist in the first place. If it will matter to us... it will be based on logic.

---

Where do you stand on NOMA Sae?

NOMA?

Non Overlapping MAgisteria.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Scientology? O.o?