RE: Scientism & Philosophical Arguments
December 14, 2015 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 12:22 pm by SteveII.)
(December 14, 2015 at 9:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: Well, philo and meta naturalism aren't actually scientism, nor are they the notion that only science can judge truth. So..I guess that pretty much shits on your OP and I'm done on that count.
As regards the value of philosophy - you need some tool to decide whether or not your propositions are sound, and this is required by the system we've organized to describe proper or informative argumentation. We know that you don't get to vomit up any old statement, as you did above, and then claim to be approaching or seeking truth. We knew that long before we ever got into science, and science can't draw conclusions without reference to philosophy - as a largely inductive system itself. Science sans philosophy is a nonsensical statement, and philosophy without science is merely an exhibition of structural method. This, ofc..is what Hawking very clearly expressed. That philosophy, without hard data, is insufficient. Hardly a revelation.
I stand corrected on the terms philosophical and metaphysical naturalism. There is overlap in definitions but they are not the same.
