Quote from SamH :

Kinda, maybe? Science was originally (maybe 2K years ago) known as "natural philosophy". So at its heart and for a long time, science and philosophy had at least synonymity. With the "recent" advent of the enlightenment, physical science (or "physics"?) as a philosophy distinguish itself greatly from other philosophies, with enormous changes to its discipline, the development of the scientific method and so on. But it is still derived in (and has a long history of) the principle of seeking to find a truthful way to describe reality, which is a principle it shares with all other philosophies. You yourself said "mother and child", and this I guess is the same as I'm saying. Maybe I'm just saying it badly.

SamH, I tell you this with the greatest kindness, but you always say stupid things.

Historically, sciences were born from human reflection, which we call philosophy (to put it simply). Sciences are now autonomous.
To use Alexandr's metaphor, you are trying to explain to us that the child can return inside the mother, in whole or in part.

Do you understand why this statement is unacceptable from the point of view of reason?

[ I don't say this to troll this thread, but to help you think. I also think of those who try to read us and are perhaps shocked by certain enormities. You cannot reinvent the definitions of science and philosophy.]

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

You are tough on us. Ouch ! But it reassuring that you haven't learned anything here.


And SamH is right to ask you for a link. Without a link no one can understand what you are talking about? Trees absorb CO2 and also release it. Especially when they are cut or burned.

@#$!!!! what happened to my post? Oh well try again
https://scitechdaily.com/should-we-cut-down-all-the-oak-trees-the-unexpected-link-between-trees-and-air-pollution/
sorry about that.

I read something else about dead trees in Northern Canada and being preserved under the permafrost. and as that permafrost, those trees give off methane gasses. Must've screwed up somewhere. Also. I've been reading about the possible collapse of the gulf stream by 2025. They stated that the current is less powerful than in years past. My guess on that is the drought we had/have in the Gulf Coast of the southern USofA. When there's not much river water running into the gulf of Mexico, the salt water runs inland. I think that's where the loss in current is coming from

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Choose one definition over another. Yes. But when they exist. No individual has the power to reassign a new meaning to common concepts (or at his peril).
It is not for SamH to decide what science or philosophy is, nor even to confuse them. This will only make sense to him. That was the point of my joke.

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.

Quote from 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.

If you do the effort to understand my messages you will see that I am not unaware of your questions and that my answers are relevant, at least in terms of elementary logic. No more complex tools are needed here.

I apologize, Alexandr, but what you are saying makes no sense.

As you yourself explained in your own words, sciences were born from philosophy. Which means, in the ideal world (from idears), that sciences are born by “separation” of “meaning”. Which have since become fixed in common semantics. This is not an empty nominalism. In other words words have a conceptually defined meaning. Changing this state of affairs does not depend on anyone's will. An individual who uses common language with words that only make sense to him is called a moron (in science).

Science refers to the study of phenomena. Philosophy is the quest for meaning (schematically). The two entities differ in their concepts. This differentiation does not depend on your will.
Once out of the mother's womb, the child has little chance of re-entering it. It is technically possible within certain limits, but this return to the source will not recreate the conditions prior to childbirth. The umbilical cord between philosophy and science has long been cut by reason.

Philosophy can rely on science to access meaning (and always has). Philosophy can understand science as an object. But when science mixes with meaning, we get, for example, creationism. This is what our friend SamH produces for us: an unproductive and hollow creationism in the sense that it does not allow for a theory, but claims to create sufficient doubt with the same method. It's a decoy. A conceptual imposture.

I refer you here to this quote from Nicolas Boileau.

“What we understand well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it come easily. » Are in a thick cloud always embarrassed; The day of reason cannot penetrate it.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

I refer you here to this quote from Nicolas Boileau.

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.)

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

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.)

I'll give you the dictionary definitions since you don't seem to have any.

Philosophy
Set of questions that human beings can ask about themselves and examination of the answers they can provide; systematic and general (but not scientific) vision of the world (aesthetics, ethics, logic1, metaphysics, morality, ontology, theology).

Science
Coherent body of knowledge relating to certain categories of facts, objects or phenomena obeying laws and/or verified by experimental methods.

In fact, language is used to understand reality: A horse is a horse and a donkey is a donkey.

Does this answer work for you?

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Does this answer work for you?

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.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

I'll give you the dictionary definitions since you don't seem to have any.

Philosophy
Set of questions that human beings can ask about themselves and examination of the answers they can provide; systematic and general (but not scientific) vision of the world (aesthetics, ethics, logic1, metaphysics, morality, ontology, theology).

Science
Coherent body of knowledge relating to certain categories of facts, objects or phenomena obeying laws and/or verified by experimental methods.

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.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

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.

You are deluding yourself, Alexandr. You are confusing definitions and aphorisms. Your sleight of hand doesn't work.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

You are deluding yourself, Alexandr. You are confusing definitions and aphorisms. Your sleight of hand doesn't work.

I think I get it, you don't answer questions when you realise you're wrong. And then you start talking nonsense. Convenient.

You are playing, Alexandr. Like a child.

What kinds of meaning would have aphorisms from philosophers from such different eras, about such historically changing notions as science and philosophy? Popper's demarcation explores the boundary between science and what is not science. It does not aim to bring together science and philosophy. You're still talking nonsense.

You feel like you're producing meaning because you're manipulating words and concepts. Since you don't bother to understand what they really are and mean, you don't even understand other people's explanations.

This is like mashing potatoes with a fork to make mash. Your purely covering verbiage stretches into increasingly transparent layers which hide from your consciousness the extent of your ignorance. But only in your sight. This is partly why this attitude is futile.

If you want to understand, swallow your childish pride. Knowledge is not a struggle. It's a work. Really try. You'll see, it's worth it.

You will manage to wear my patience to the end. That won't prove you right, though.

Like your alter-ego SamH, you swell syllogisms like balloons. You seem to be the products of the same cognitive dissociation and same ignorance. And your stupidities are displayed for everyone to see. It's just you who doesn't realize it.

Trust me on this, at least, no one learns on the internet. Go back to school.

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.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

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 hope you understood, I'm not 12 and a half anymore. There are a number of things I know for sure without needing to check them in Wikipedia.

For example, Kant was (in his time and through his philosophical thought) infinitely closer to the sciences than Heidegger. I haven't read the black notebooks. What is in it that directly relates to science or our topic? For example.

I studied philosophy in graduate school for 5 years with a Kantian philosopher as my teacher (a little known in his field) at a time when the domestic internet was not even a subject. I have been living from the concept for almost 30 years. This is what nourishes me every day.

I tell you this with all kindness. You will not impress me with your salamalecs and your half-scholar sleight of hand or with your false imposture trials.

Occam's Razor is a philosophical tool. You can use it however you want. Even grab it by the blade and cut your fingers with it. It's kind of what you do every day.

It is a shame that you are not up to the task of your subject. It is important. You will realize it in the very too near future.

In the meantime, have fun. It seems that you are not capable of anything else yet.

ye global warming was made in someones bedroom weirdmen

You are good with aphorisms.
Aphorisms have meaning (from the Nietzschean perspective) in a given intellectual context. This is how it becomes understandable. Without context we think it's jokes. Is it a balga? Or, may I ask what your intellectual background is?
(this is neither an attack nor an irony but a simple curiosity that you are not obliged to satisfy)

I'd really like to know the education and current job of the following gentlemen:

[1] Aleksandr_124rus
[2] Avraham Vandezwin
[3] SamH

You guys have very serious philosophical skills and a lot of free time. Tnx.

Quote from rane_nbg :

I'd really like to know the education and current job of the following gentlemen:

[1] Aleksandr_124rus
[2] Avraham Vandezwin
[3] SamH

You guys have very serious philosophical skills and a lot of free time. Tnx.

I'm not at the top of your list but I've already responded.
When it comes to free time, appearances are against me. I have few like most people who have a real job. I am lucky enough to work from home, when I am not traveling for work and to be my own boss.
So, the LFS forum became, in a way, my playground. When my activities permit, it is open on my second screen. I take a look at it from time to time. Especially when I'm on the phone.
I know that you have chosen total transparency. Professionally, I can't afford it.
But, you know, on the internet everyone can be whatever they want, as long as they are able to remain credible. A quarter of an hour said Warhol. Wikipedia made this dream possible.

EDIT: Clarification: I used the expression "intellectual background" in an effectively equivocal and undoubtedly inappropriate manner in the sense of “what do you have in mind that could make us understand what you are saying”. This wasn't a CV request.
But my English is horrible

Ok, tnx for the reply. I understand. I don't have anything in mind at the moment, it was just curiosity.

Quote from rane_nbg :

I'd really like to know the education and current job of the following gentlemen:

[1] Aleksandr_124rus
[2] Avraham Vandezwin
[3] SamH

You guys have very serious philosophical skills and a lot of free time. Tnx.

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.

Tnx. 2 down, 1 more to go

Quote from rane_nbg :

I'd really like to know the education and current job

Studied at art college, then became a computer programmer mid-nineties and rode the dotcom wave in the US and UK. Today I do mostly vanity projects in both graphic design and computing to satisfy my ADHD and OCD. I've no qualifications in philosophy and only a passing interest. I specifically concern myself with the integrity of science.

Cool cool, tnx SamH.

In my opinion as someone who is doing science, it's hard to talk about the integrity of the entire science as there are many many different fields and subfields therein. I do believe that as things are now, any false or poorly done publications are disputed by other publications or eventually just removed from the literature. Most of it is very good, but there have been quite some amount of questionable works even in reputable Journals, especially in medicine, but in other fields as well.

Nowadays, it's really hard to publish anything as it requires multidisciplinary work. Before you could do just physics and publish it. Now, you have to do chemistry, physics, biology, programming, engineering, and so on to get something new. There is big pressure on scientists to publish in order to keep their job, and funding for projects, therefore it's understandable that many try their way around using some shortcuts, which unfortunately produces bad science as you are mentioning.

For this problem of global warming and its consequences, it's quite hard to grasp everything we are observing as there is so much data. Giving predictions 50-100 years in the future is also extremely difficult and no matter how hard we try, the estimates are at the end of the day just our best or an educated guess. Things can very quickly get out of our hands for future generations if we do not start acting now.

I completely agree with your assessment. I think the "rush to publish" is an issue, and I think direct external influence over research funding is a primary issue too.

What you're witnessing in medicine is I believe unfortunately the tip of the iceberg. The system as it has now evolved is unfortunately too easy, if not absolutely necessary, to corrupt.

Since COVID, the situation with funding in science has been quite bad. Everywhere around the world, when I go to conferences I hear the same story from all scientists (at least in my field) - we have cuts in funding, we had to let some people go and we couldn't continue with our research so we had to somehow adapt funding proposals to involve something that has sexy words in it, like "AI", "nano or atto", "ultra-fast", "atmospheric" and so on..

For example, my group is now moving into "quantum computing" where before would could just publish different cross-sections of different molecules for certain processes that are important in radiation damage research, the semiconductor industry, atmospheric chemistry and so on, but that is no longer interesting for funding agencies (even though there is a ton of molecules to be investigated, for example in astrochemistry there is almost unlimited amount of things to study).

I can imagine that COVID has accelerated the process, but I can assure you this has been going on for probably 3 decades in certain fields. Obviously the effect on the research being funded and then advanced to publication, which delivers preferred findings, which will help secure future funding (or more importantly, won't jeopardise it), is antithetical to the principle of science for science's sake. It has the potential to skew the balance of scientific enquiry. Arguably, with research funding being determined this way, this is the only entirely predictable consequence.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Giving predictions 50-100 years in the future is also extremely difficult and no matter how hard we try, the estimates are at the end of the day just our best or an educated guess. Things can very quickly get out of our hands for future generations if we do not start acting now.

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.