I don't think I meant that. I'm curious as to why you came to that conclusion?
That's what I'm talking about, and I'm always startled by people who know exactly what's going to happen in the future. I have no problem with people who make probability predictions based on science, but people who say "there will surely be a catastrophe" remind me of Vanga. Who allegedly made the right predictions, but in fact was a common charlatan.
I am an industrial designer and have the required education for this area. More than 10 years working in this field. (Which by the way helped when creating mods) And I just set up my life so that I have enough free time and do everything I like to do outside of work, (that doesn't mean I don't like my job
).I don't have a philosophical degree. Just have an interest in this topic and I read some sorts of books on philosophy and watch content in this area, as well as wrote a few articles.
In our country philosophical education is considered the most useless, and it is needed only for philosophy teachers other position not requires a philosophical education. We also have a big problem with teachers because it is filled with followers of diamat and Marxian school. So if you want to get a good objective education it is better to study on your own. But that doesn't mean we don't have good philosophers. Dugin is world famous, although I do not share his position, but he is very consistent in his views. And there are plenty of equally good philosophers, they're just less well known.
Someone who is right will certainly accept pathetic attempts at excuses like you. I don't even care if you really think wikipedia is a source of apharisms and yourself a source of generally accepted concepts. You're the only one who thinks that and no one else. You have shown your low level of discourse, your appeals to my personality do not interest me. Everything is clear to me about you. This is the end of our dialogue with you.
I think I get it, you don't answer questions when you realise you're wrong. And then you start talking nonsense. Convenient.
It's working!!! Holy sh*t it really works!
I wasn't expecting it, but you were able to give me some kind of answer.
Please do so with all my other questions from now on, as long as we talk in a respectful manner.
And why did you choose those definitions? Why did you choose Le Larousse's definition of science? And whose definition of philosophy I couldn't find. But Wikipedia Source which is usually adopted by a majority of people. But you have chosen other definitions of Science and Philosophy. But the fact that these definitions are different already indicates that these definitions are not generally accepted. You have one definition and wikipedia says different and another source will say a third and so on.
Here's a link to 50 definitions of philosophy, for example. Because it's defined in many different ways.
Or here's a link to an explanation of philosophical positions on different definitions of philosophy. That is, the definitions change depending on your philosophical views on the matter.
Same thing with the definition of science. Why did you choose to define Le Larousse? Not some other kind?
The definition given is reduced to laws or experiments. So Sociology, Anthropology and History are not sciences from this definition. There are no laws and no experiments. That's the first thing that came to mind, there are probably more such disciplines.
For this reason there are many definitions, the broadest ones that include everything become vague, the narrower ones do not include some commonly accepted sciences. This is the problem with definitions of broad concepts like philosophy and science. The problem of demarcation.
You can continue to live in your own world. But in the real world there is no such thing as commonly accepted notions of broad concepts. And I've just clearly demonstrated that.
Can you refer to my questions and answer them? Well no. As could be expected.. I realise I was naive in expecting answers from Avraham. But apparently you think these concepts have a common meaning. Apparently, according to you, it was given to us by aliens or God. What am I supposed to think if you can't answer?
Let me offer you a challenge, this challenge will be difficult for you, so its maybe beyond your comprehension. The challenge is that I will ask you a question and you will answer it directly, let's see if you can do it.
So you think the definitions of science and philosophy are common. Can you cite them?
EDIT cuz maybe he wouldn't understand. (My question means that you need cite the commonly accepted defenitions of science and philosophy. And thats it. You don't need to quote Nicolas Boileau for answering question. You don't need to describe philosophical positions on various issues that I didn't ask about, and you don't have to avoid the question in any other way, I know you like to do that. But just try it for once answering question. I believe you can do it.)
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Why? What are you talking about? I repeat, we live in the real world, there is no such thing as common concepts \ common meaning \ accepted notions in broad concepts. There's a lot of different definitions, and sometimes people give their own.
Why are you deciding for others who can give definitions and who can't?
How do you think these definitions were formed? Because other people came up with them. And where is the boundary of when people have the right to make up definitions and when they don't?
In addition when people give out their definitions often they can coincide with already existing definitions because they have been made up before. How do you solve it? Who had the right to come up with the definition and who did not?
Although apparently you're just going to ignore my questions as usual.
Okay, let's say you don't understand...
Why are you asking me?
I'm asking because of your statement. I don't think so at all. Speaking of philosophical questions and definitions you're saying it's "do not depend on him" I don't know what you mean, that's why I'm asking the question. "Then who does it depend on?" You claim this "do not depend on him" so you should have an opinion on who it depends on.
In my opinion, it is up to each individual to decide what definition to follow regarding broad concepts (like science or philosophy). If the position is consistent and makes sense then there's no problem here. There are no such things as common meanings on broad concepts, if we are not talking about highly specialized terminology. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a different question. We're talking about how it happens in the real world.
Why are you asking me?
I'm asking because of your statement. I don't think so at all. Speaking of philosophical questions and definitions you're saying it's "do not depend on him" I don't know what you mean, that's why I'm asking the question. "Then who does it depend on?" You claim this "do not depend on him" so you should have an opinion on who it depends on.
In my opinion, it is up to each individual to decide what definition to follow regarding broad concepts (like science or philosophy). If the position is consistent and makes sense then there's no problem here. There are no such things as common meanings on broad concepts, if we are not talking about highly specialized terminology. Whether it should or shouldn't be is a different question. We're talking about how it happens in the real world.
Well, that's a much clearer answer for me. We're talking about the same thing, but we're just making different conclusions. I see what you mean, but imao just because one comes from the other doesn't make it the same. About physics, if you mean Aristotle's physics, it is very different from today's physics, Aristotle talked about the 4 elements of which the world is made. He tried to talk about things like gravity and rectilinear motion, but he was fundamentally wrong in many aspects.
He was just trying to learn about the world through observation and drawing his own conclusions about it.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling error fixed
What
Are you trolling me or something? I refuse to believe you're being serious.I don't want to think badly of your intelligence, so I'll just hope for a joke. Same thing in a few posts from you.
Then maybe I didn't understand what you were saying.
There is an aspect of philosophy in science, this is indisputable, for example in scientific method has philosophical concepts of verification and falsification along with Occam's razor.
Do you think that makes science a philosophy?
omg..I don't understand the habit of such answers to questions. I see less and less point in asking you questions.😔
Do you know the difference between what should be and what is?
In your answer to SamH you say what is, I ask you what is, and you answer what should be.
I.e. you are not answering the question. As usual.
Why not just give a straight answer? WHY??
Then who do they depend on and why?
No. I've already summarised my position, it's not much different from the mainstream. But mixing idialogy, science and philosophy into one is not a productive way of looking at things.
You can think that way if you want. As I said earlier, there are many definitions of what is philosophy and what is science and there are no generally accepted ones. But the academic philosophical mainstream doesn't think the way you do. So you started doing philosophy here
All I did was simply describe the genesis and roles of philosophy and science from mainstream positions. In my opinion, it is not practical to call sciences philosophies, firstly because of different methodology. Secondly, because of the different fields of study. Thirdly, because of the problem of demarcation. What is the difference between philosophy and science if science is philosophy? You need to give definitions.
Since you quoted this passage, you must agree with it. By the way, I recommend you to read Heidegger's Black Notebooks if you think he is a philosopher you should listen to.
Philosophy is not a science, just as a mother is not a child. Because out of philosophy came all the other sciences. The sciences study the world through models and Philosophy deals with fundamental knowledge and reality. Science and philosophy are not in competition with each other. They are like two curves that run parallel to each other, occasionally crossing each other.
Moreover, philosophy does not need what are now called sciences, but science needs philosophy. Philosophical teaching arose long before what we today call science. Philosophy studies many things, for example, sciences need philosophy at least because philosophy studies fundamental concepts of these sciences. For example, as in geometry there is the concept of a point. The question of what a point is is not a question of geometry. It's a question of philosophy. A point is one of the fundamental (indefinable) mathematical objects whose properties are defined by a system of axioms. It is not strictly possible to represent a point as an indivisible element of the corresponding mathematical space defined in geometry, mathematical analysis and other sections of mathematics. And so it is in many other cases.
Even the question of what is Science and what is Philosophy are philosophical questions. These concepts have many different definitions. One such definition, for example in Philosophy, is that Philosophy is a discipline concerned with the study of the basic concepts of other disciplines. Or another definition, Philosophy is a discipline devoted to the application of formal logic to humanitarian problems. Either way, it is a description of the same kind of activity, just a description in different ways.
Philosophy is not concerned with the study of models that should correspond to reality, but philosophy favours logical rigour, mental experimentation and argument in its research.
This is why many scientists who ignore philosophical works forget the importance of logical argumentation.
Apparently not answering questions with a big longread is your style. Although I can see why you don't want to answer, because the right answer doesn't benefit you.
Well, this is a good demonstration of how Occam's razor works in terms of not understanding it. Occam's razor does not cut or remove anything.
Is a problem-solving principle that suggests looking for explanations made up of the fewest number of entities.
In popular culture, it is not always correctly interpreted as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."
Occam's razor It is actually a philosophical tool that states that when presented with competing hypotheses, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, conditions, exceptions, etc (so as not to list all of them, they're usually called "entities") Occam's razor isn't utilized in science as a strict arbiter between competing hypotheses, but rather as an useful abductive heuristic in the building of theoretical models.
EDIT: I asked my question only on the basis that you were the first to bring up Occam's razor, and not in a very reasonable context for your argument. In my question, it is obvious which explanation requires fewer entities. But you of course won't say that.
Well, this is a good demonstration of how Occam's razor works in terms of not understanding it. Occam's razor does not cut or remove anything.
Is a problem-solving principle that suggests looking for explanations made up of the fewest number of entities.
In popular culture, it is not always correctly interpreted as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."
Occam's razor It is actually a philosophical tool that states that when presented with competing hypotheses, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, conditions, exceptions, etc (so as not to list all of them, they're usually called "entities") Occam's razor isn't utilized in science as a strict arbiter between competing hypotheses, but rather as an useful abductive heuristic in the building of theoretical models.
EDIT: I asked my question only on the basis that you were the first to bring up Occam's razor, and not in a very reasonable context for your argument. In my question, it is obvious which explanation requires fewer entities. But you of course won't say that.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Context, a question about what will happen to nature and people.
Answer options:
First (The greenhouse) and why.
Second (that is built on graphs, measurements..etc) and why.
I don't know.
How about if we just respect the person we are talking to regardless of their views and just answer their questions directly? How about that?
Everything above from Avraham Vandezwin just shows exactly what I'm talking about.
All I did was ask one question. But I only received his question in response to mine, and it was unrelated to mine. And when I pointed it out, I got a longreade with even more questions and straw man posts that he attacked.
Now I get a text with even more straw man fallacy and 20 questions. This isn't a joke. There are actually 20 questions. Why would my interlocutor ask 20 questions knowing that I won't answer all the questions? I dont know. Especially knowing that things will go back to the way they were.
If you're asked a question you don't know how to answer, here's a working tactic for you. You can use it.
All I did was ask one question. But I only received his question in response to mine, and it was unrelated to mine. And when I pointed it out, I got a longreade with even more questions and straw man posts that he attacked.
Now I get a text with even more straw man fallacy and 20 questions. This isn't a joke. There are actually 20 questions. Why would my interlocutor ask 20 questions knowing that I won't answer all the questions? I dont know. Especially knowing that things will go back to the way they were.
If you're asked a question you don't know how to answer, here's a working tactic for you. You can use it.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
What a mind game with strawman stuffed animals and mental dances. Instead of short and clear answers to questions, there are unnecessary longreads. The interlocutor starts proving global warming to us, although nobody here argues with it and he knows it. He invents his own Occam's razor. Instead of dialog there are monologues. In which I already have little sense of what's going on and why. Does not want to listen to each other and answer questions. I don't know how to talk with all of it anymore. In my opinion, the essence of dialog is disappearing.
I'll take any answer that has sufficient justification. Just as important to strengthening an argument are, verification, falsification, and adherence to Occam's razor. Which is part of the scientific method.
Reasoning is what the thesis is based on. In other words, you said that the thesis is based on the thesis.
So if the Most scientists jump off the roof of the building you will also jump off the roof of the building?
Most scientists back in the day believed in the existence of aether.
Most scientists in the USSR believed in Lysenkoism, i.e. that if you raise pig the right way she will give birth to a goat.
Most scientists back in the day did not believe in microorganisms. For centuries, surgeons believed that it was not necessary to wash their hands before surgery. This caused gangrene in patients.
Doctors blamed the imbalance between the four fluids they believed were in the body - blood, mucus, yellow bile juice and black bile juice - for the patients' deaths. It wasn't until the 1860s that Louis Pasteur proved that microbes were responsible for many diseases.
Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy just like appealing to authority. This in itself cannot be an argument.
Scientists have often been wrong with their theories and hypotheses. And that's part of the scientific process. But excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge is scientism. Which is a not rational thing.
So instead of answering the question directly, you decided to ask your own questions.
Which, by the way, is indicative of an understanding of Occam's razor. "(material, humanitarian, sociological, economic and political. Etc.)" these are the new entities you're introducing unnecessarily.
It will be difficult to dialog when instead of answers to my question I get new questions, especially since they have nothing to do with the original question.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling error fixed
You were talking about "global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe."
If by that you mean that millions of people will have to leave their homes, then we have misunderstood each other. Because I'm not arguing with it.
I can assure you, so far during our dialogue my positions have not changed in any way because all I have done is ask for an reasoning. But instead I got different links that either don't say what I asked for or say the same thing I did in my argumentation.
If you understand what Occam's Razor is, tell me which explanation requires fewer entities?
The greenhouse explanation which is based on actual reality and can be verified.
Or one that is built on graphs, measurements of temperatures and levels of various emissions, correlations between those graphs, and on predictions with not always high confidence.
I'm not inherently arguing against the possibility of rising water levels with rising average temperatures, but global drought is still not a clear-cut topic for me.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : add a question mark
In fact, on both sides, I see positive consequences of the actions taken. The scientific mainstream influences the political mainstream. And politics promotes the fight against climate change at the state level by developing various laws to reduce emissions and so on. The only one who is not affected by this is China. The rest of the big ones have been trying to reduce their emissions for a decade for now or even longer.
I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.
I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG