Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 24, 2025, 1:32 am
Thread Rating:
A Lesson in the Practicality of Philosophy I Learned Today
|
(October 21, 2014 at 3:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Are you suggesting that only knowledge that has (empirically) predictive value counts as knowledge?No. I'm saying that is the only (reliable) method for ensuring that knowledge concerned with objectivity is ascertained.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(October 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:Seems circular. Can you prove a proposition that science is the only reliable method for confirming objective knowledge by using scientific methods?(October 21, 2014 at 3:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Are you suggesting that only knowledge that has (empirically) predictive value counts as knowledge?No. I'm saying that is the only (reliable) method for ensuring that knowledge concerned with objectivity is ascertained. RE: A Lesson in the Practicality of Philosophy I Learned Today
October 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2014 at 5:49 pm by Mudhammam.)
(October 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seems circular. Can you prove a proposition that science is the only reliable method for confirming objective knowledge by using scientific methods?Your question is equivalent in sensibility to asking if "one can prove a proposition that light is the only reliable method for illumination by using light?" By objective knowledge I take you to mean conception of the real objects that exist in perception, and by scientific method, the careful examination of those objects and their relation to other objects as well as the subject. So, considering our alternatives, yes.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(October 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: connexion Pickup, I've greatly admired your strong push into a philosophical education-- it's really showing through your increasingly-engaging comments. You are becoming a truly great mind. However, your transformation from 20th-century dude to 19th-century schoolgirl to 18th-century Englishman is worrying me! (October 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:And with that statement you appear to be retreating from the requirement of predictive value. Nothing in the description you just presented excludes metaphysical inferences from and about the nature of sensible bodies.(October 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seems circular. Can you prove a proposition that science is the only reliable method for confirming objective knowledge by using scientific methods?...By objective knowledge I take you to mean conception of the real objects that exist in perception, and by scientific method, the careful examination of those objects and their relation to other objects as well as the subject. So, considering our alternatives, yes. (October 21, 2014 at 10:39 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And with that statement you appear to be retreating from the requirement of predictive value. Nothing in the description you just presented excludes metaphysical inferences from and about the nature of sensible bodies.On the contrary, I'll grant you the differences that lie in pure speculation (theology), the appraisal of concepts for the purpose of defining possible grounds (philosophy), and offering--in principle--testable hypotheses (science). Only the latter allows conceptual possibility to pass into objective knowledge.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)