whats the point.

[homegrown]

I have proposed humankind must accept a scientific understanding of reality in commonover and above religious political and economicideology. No reply. What's gthe point. Doomed. Doomed. Doomed.zr

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




..........................................................................................WHY?







...........................................................









.

[homegrown]

Neither libetry nor equality but truth.

[homegrown]

See. World of 'duh. You suck!

[James Markham]

What scientific explanation can explain why something exists, empirical science is the study of what is, and what it does. Religion and metaphysical philosophy seeks to understand the fundamental how and why.

[homegrown]

Oh no! Ought from is again! Please.

[RickLewis]

Oh no! Ought from is again! Please.

Are you saying we ought not to mention "ought from is"?

[homegrown]

Humankind is headed for extinction. I know why and how to prevent it, because I know what should have happened instead. The Church of Rome made a Grand Mistake not embracing Galileo's work as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. Science should have been integrated on an ongoing basis for centuries - such that a scientificaly valid understanding of reality formed the basis of the hierarchy of values that is society. Instead, the Church's suppression of science allowed political and economic ideologies to develop without reference to scientific truth. Consequently, the whole ideological architecture of society is false; and acting on falsity within a causal reality has ill-effects, i.e. the energy crisis, climate change, over-population, deforestation, over-fishing, polution etc, that will eventually amount to extinction.

I accept a scientific conception of reality - and consequently accept that the world is a single planetary environment and that humankind is a single species. A person of my acquaintance is quite the patriot and consequently believes his national ethnic group superior to all others - and therefore considers himself superior to people from other ethnic groups.

James Markham brought it up - and I bailed because I'm sick of having this debate. The naturalistic fallacy - or the 'ought from is' argument is irrelevent. Describing David Hume's argument, G.E. Moore's term 'the naturalistic fallacy' is an article of philosophical faith raised endlessly as an objection to accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common. Every time I write here the ought from is argument is raised as if it were a law that describes a physical impossibility. 'Because one cannot derive ought from is - ideologies are necessary to allocate values.' But Hume's objection was to the observation that people so frequently do just that. To misquote him from memory, Hume said something like: '...people cite facts A, B, and C - and without pausing for breath, enter into should mode to advocate D, as if D were the inescapable consequence.'

His complaint was that no list of facts ''neccesitates'' a moral value - but it's perfectly normal practice to infer values from facts. People do it all the time; and worse - they infer values from falsities. For example; the claim that God appointed the Queeen to form a Parliament is truth claim about reality from which the value of political legitimacy is derived. It's not a valid truth claim, but nonetheless, conforms to the logic of an 'is' from which an 'ought' is derived. Would you really defend this - or the dictats of the Catholic Church, or even the result of market forces as better bases for political legitimacy, social justice and/or moral values than scientific truth??!!

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







........................................................





.............................................................There is no way out.



....................................................You have to find a way in.





.

[Kuznetzova]

I accept a scientific conception of reality - and consequently

And consequently what...??

I don't think you can be the voice of Science around here, or elsewhere. Science says you are a complex aggregate of molecules. Your brain divides the world up into "objects" because those divisions help you survive and propagate your genes. Your species is currently reproducing exponentially on earth, because the 'biological system' doesn't care about the future.

His complaint was that no list of facts ''neccesitates'' a moral value - but it's perfectly normal practice to infer values from facts. People do it all the time; and worse - they infer values from falsities. For example; the claim that God appointed the Queeen to form a Parliament is truth claim about reality from which the value of political legitimacy is derived. It's not a valid truth claim, but nonetheless, conforms to the logic of an 'is' from which an 'ought' is derived. Would you really defend this - or the dictats of the Catholic Church, or even the result of market forces as better bases for political legitimacy, social justice and/or moral values than scientific truth??!!

Raw scientific truth is de-humanizing, valueless and violent. It does not legitimize any political, judicial, or moral system -- but dismisses these as illusions of a provincial, natural language. Scientific truth does not affirm life. Scientific truth builds nuclear weapons and chemical weapon agents. Scientific truth says that all vertebrates survive by virtue of killing and eating other lifeforms. It informs the minds of soldiers waiting silently with a sniper rifle. What are you attempting to do is cutting the foundation out from under your stated goal.

[James Markham]

homegrown, in order to discuss this matter properly, I need to get some sort of understanding as to what you classify as scientific.

I'm personally of the opinion that ruling out any part of our experience, that is, anything that falls under the heading of reality (so everything), is to hinder the process of understanding the whole thing as a unified phenomena, which is for me the whole purpose of philosophical investigation.

So my question was intended as a means to understand at what point your theory begins. I am of the opinion that until the beginning and directing forces are understood, any present reality is unexplainable.

So does you accepted scientific theory, contain any fundamental reasoning on how and why?

[henry quirk]

Yep.

Enjoy the ride.

[henry quirk]

must

Interesting how when must comes up, so does no.

*shrug*