RE: The pre-failure of apologetic arguments
December 18, 2011 at 2:32 am
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2011 at 2:43 am by Perhaps.)
1.) Science by definition is falsifiable and therefore has the ability to be wrong.
- The example given in the video is a perfect case of this occurring. It has been observed that particles can and do travel faster than the speed of light. It has also been observed that space has [edit:] the capability of traveling faster than the speed of light. The theory of relativity is not as simple as the video wished to make it seem.
2.) Philosophy by definition is mostly always wrong, but none-the-less is the cause of most, if not all, natural and physical sciences.
- As was stated many times earlier, an argument is only sound if the premises are true. It is possible for a philosophical explanation to be logically sound which would give it equal weight to any reasoned scientific explanation.
In short, science and philosophy are both able to be wrong, neither has the upper hand in a conversation of existence or causality unless one is not logically sound. Empirical evidence is not proof of (non)existence, nor is predictive evidence based on past observations. If you want an explanation as to why then look into cosmology or any science really, and observe how many times it has been wrong. Our knowledge is current and we would be naive to believe that we can say anything with complete truth.
- The example given in the video is a perfect case of this occurring. It has been observed that particles can and do travel faster than the speed of light. It has also been observed that space has [edit:] the capability of traveling faster than the speed of light. The theory of relativity is not as simple as the video wished to make it seem.
2.) Philosophy by definition is mostly always wrong, but none-the-less is the cause of most, if not all, natural and physical sciences.
- As was stated many times earlier, an argument is only sound if the premises are true. It is possible for a philosophical explanation to be logically sound which would give it equal weight to any reasoned scientific explanation.
In short, science and philosophy are both able to be wrong, neither has the upper hand in a conversation of existence or causality unless one is not logically sound. Empirical evidence is not proof of (non)existence, nor is predictive evidence based on past observations. If you want an explanation as to why then look into cosmology or any science really, and observe how many times it has been wrong. Our knowledge is current and we would be naive to believe that we can say anything with complete truth.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
