RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 25, 2019 at 8:28 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2019 at 8:32 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 25, 2019 at 8:24 am)bennyboy Wrote:If philosophic speculation and rational inference are, likewise, based on empiricism...then metaphysics is an empty set, and it's uncertain why the most succesful form of empirical investigation...the scientific method... would be an inappropriate tool for investigating the empirical.(March 25, 2019 at 6:07 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Still, I doubt that bickering over the minutiae is going to approach the point of contention between empiricism and other-than-empiricism or physics and metaphysics. Let's just assume that your cants are in effect, and that no hypothesis will ever yield a theory. Would the unsuitability or even failure of one tool suggest or imply that there was some other tool, that we possessed it, or that the set of things this tool was unsuitable for was actually populated?
I'm not a declared agnostic because I believe there's a better tool for investigating metaphysical questions than science. I'm a declared agnostic because I don't think we have access to answers about some questions. That being said, it is clear to me that there are some limitations specific to the scientific method which would suggest that either philosophical speculation or rational inference would be better tries at understanding those questions than science could be.
Quote:Here's the state of things as I see them: there are some things in existence, namely the Universe in general and the property of mind specifically, which science has proven a very poor tool in explaining. Anyone claiming that science provides a good working model of reality is, in my view, in error, because a good working model of reality must include both of those-- i.e. it must adequately answer the questions of cosmogony and psychogony.Again, minutiae, and you're just telling us that you disagree with scientific hypotheses or the ability to establish a theory, it;s not accurate to consider either subject a black box for science..they just aren't.
Quote:Furthermore, since science has not demonstrated its ability to answer those very important questions, insistence either that it CAN or HAS answered them, or assertions that it is likely to answer them in the future, are statements of faith. I see them as a tribal response of anti-religion or anti-spiritualism, rather than as sincere statements of a good understanding of modern scientific principles or conclusions.Again, signalling your disagreement. It's not as if you aren't aware of the fact that there are scientific hypotheses.
Even though hasn't isn't interchangeble with can't...and even though won't isn't interchangeable with can't..let's just assume your cants, and try to move forward from there?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!