Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

[Belinda]

Uwot, would you be willing to swap "something exists" for "something is happening" ?

Just as well, you could use "The Happening" synonumously with "The Universe" or "The Something".

The denotation would be the same, even if the connotation of "The Happening" implies a more dynamic nature than the other two.

Yes, I think you could. After a long duration happenings aka the universe will cease.

[Skepdick]

Interesting theory! Have you tested it? I'll be very interested to see the data from any of the experiments you've conducted.

I have tested it.

The data is being presented to you is directly from the source.

In uttering the English expression "Being is" I am expressing two things:

1. "Being" - the ontology (in its entirety. Past present and future).
2. "Is" - my qualitative re-assertion of the ontology.

[Skepdick]

Yes, I think you could. After a long duration happenings aka the universe will cease.

In which case you could ontologically promote it to "The Ceasing".

[Belinda]

Yes, I think you could. After a long duration happenings aka the universe will cease.

In which case you could ontologically promote it to "The Ceasing".

Yes, I think you could. After a long duration happenings aka the universe will cease.

In which case you could ontologically promote it to "The Ceasing".

Is nothing an event? Or its it an event only if there is a Mind to hammer an event out of it?

The Ceasing was always implicate in The Happening.

[mickthinks]

Interesting theory! Have you tested it? I'll be very interested to see the data from any of the experiments you've conducted.

I have tested it.

The data is being presented to you is directly from the source.

In uttering the English expression "Being is" I am expressing two things:

1. "Being" - the ontology (in its entirety. Past present and future).
2. "Is" - my qualitative re-assertion of the ontology.

What are you using to detect the ontology contained in English expressions. Are you sure you've calibrated it correctly? Can I see photos of your lab set-up. (I am assuming you didn't venture out into the field to interview yourself).

lol

[Skepdick]

What are you using to detect the ontology contained in English expressions.

My intent to express it.

Are you sure you've calibrated it correctly?

Absolutely. If I didn't want to express what I expressed I wouldn't have expressed it.

[mickthinks]

Hmmm ... sounds awfully subjective! Are you sure you are a proper scientist?

[Skepdick]

Hmmm ... sounds awfully subjective! Are you sure you are a proper scientist?

It's no more or less subjective than Mathematical expressions.

"objectively" speaking (if there is even such a thing) is 1+1=1; or is 1+1=2 ?

[mickthinks]

lol

[Belinda]

Hmmm ... sounds awfully subjective! Are you sure you are a proper scientist?

It's no more or less subjective than Mathematical expressions.

"objectively" speaking (if there is even such a thing) is 1+1=1; or is 1+1=2 ?

Sameness of quality is a useful abstraction from total experience. Unless we could pretend that qualitative sameness exists we could not quantify.

[Skepdick]

Sameness of quality is a useful abstraction from total experience. Unless we could pretend that qualitative sameness exists we could not quantify.

To go in the exact opposite direction of Stalin...

Quality is a quantity on its own!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Really? In what half of all circumstances could 'Something exists' be expressed, but not be true? And what are the 99 out of a hundred thoughts you have that don't involve thinking?

Note I claim there are

degrees

to claims of veracity or truths as qualified to its specific framework or model.
There is no such thing as 'THE TRUTH.'
It is not with reference to "half of circumstances", but rather in the circumstance as qualified to the specific framework or model used.

Not in the case of Parmenides' initial premise. I will quote myself here:
All that remains of Parmenides’ work are bits and pieces of a poem he wrote that others have quoted. Called On Nature, it tells how a goddess promised to teach him about reality. The goddess says: “It is necessary for you to learn all things, both the abiding essence of persuasive truth, and men’s opinions, in which rests no true belief.” The opinions of Anaximander or Pythagoras can possibly give us ‘true belief’ about the world, but we can never be sure about their conclusions. Is there anything that we can know with certainty? Parmenides’ innovation was to strip away ‘men’s opinions’ about the world and test what remains. His ‘persuasive truth’ was that regardless of what we might see or calculate, something exists: as he said: “Being is.” Whatever we might think about reality, it is self-refuting to argue that nothing exists. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
The statement 'Something exists' is necessarily true; even if the only thing that exists is that statement.

Yours in one interpretation, I would rely on SEP's article on Parmenides and noted there are 5 main interpretations for Parmenides' theory, i.e.

• 3. Some Principal Types of Interpretation
  3.1 The Strict Monist Interpretation
  3.2 The Logical-Dialectical Interpretation
  3.3 The Meta-Principle Interpretation
  3.4 The Aspectual Interpretation Prevailing in Antiquity
  3.5 The Modal Interpretation
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

Regardless of the variations, Parmenides' view is that of Philosophical Realism, i.e. 'Being is' independent of the human conditions which is not realistic.

This is in opposition to the anti-realistic view, i.e. 'Being is' inevitably conditioned upon the human conditions is more realistic [which I agree with].

In any case, since Parmenides' view is so contentious based on mere fragments, it is best you don't use his theories to support your point.

Similarly with Descartes; if the only thing that ever exists is the immediate perception you are having right now, it is necessarily true that that perception exists. Unlikely though it is, it is conceivable that all you are is a brief perception of youness that will flicker out any second now. Every empirical claim beyond those two is to some extent theory laden. That is not to say that there is no such thing as the truth, it's just that beyond 'something' and thought, we can't be certain what it is.

It is necessary true 'perception' exists but not all perceptions themselves are real or true, note empirical illusions and all sorts of errors in perception.

You don't seem to get it, Descartes ultimate purpose is to arrive at the certainty of the "I AM" from the certainty of the "I THINK" i.e. the cogito "I think therefore I AM."
The inferred 'certainty' of "I-AM" is for his theological purpose to support the point an independent soul exists.
Note Hume's whatever is the 'thinker' that is merely a bunch of mental activities.

• For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.
  — A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I.iv, section 6
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_'self'

I grant Descartes' what one is certain [btw not absolute] is one's thinking is true within one's own model but his model for 'I AM' is not true.

[uwot]

In any case, since Parmenides' view is so contentious based on mere fragments, it is best you don't use his theories to support your point.

I am not using Parmenides' theories to make a point, I am using his premise. Here again is my point: His ‘persuasive truth’ was that regardless of what we might see or calculate, something exists: as he said: “Being is.” Whatever we might think about reality, it is self-refuting to argue that nothing exists.

Similarly with Descartes; if the only thing that ever exists is the immediate perception you are having right now, it is necessarily true that that perception exists. Unlikely though it is, it is conceivable that all you are is a brief perception of youness that will flicker out any second now. Every empirical claim beyond those two is to some extent theory laden. That is not to say that there is no such thing as the truth, it's just that beyond 'something' and thought, we can't be certain what it is.

It is necessary true 'perception' exists but not all perceptions themselves are real or true, note empirical illusions and all sorts of errors in perception.

All of which Descartes acknowledged.

You don't seem to get it, Descartes ultimate purpose is to arrive at the certainty of the "I AM" from the certainty of the "I THINK" i.e. the cogito "I think therefore I AM."

Again, I am not arguing for any theory Descartes derived from his initial premise. As he said in the Second Meditation:
So after thoroughly thinking the matter through I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it.

The inferred 'certainty' of "I-AM" is for his theological purpose to support the point an independent soul exists.

I hope I don't have to repeat this again: I am not arguing for anything that Parmenides or Descartes said beyond the two things they said which are incontrovertibly true.

Note Hume's whatever is the 'thinker' that is merely a bunch of mental activities.

• For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.
  — A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I.iv, section 6
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_'self'

Right. Hume took the one thing Descartes said that was without doubt and took it in a different direction. The fact that you can do that is why science will probably never kill philosophy. Followers of Hume, notably Duhem and Quine claim, rightly in my view, that for any set of data, there will always be rival interpretations. Science might never be able to tell them apart so any position you take in such matters is philosophical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In any case, since Parmenides' view is so contentious based on mere fragments, it is best you don't use his theories to support your point.

I am not using Parmenides' theories to make a point, I am using his premise. Here again is my point: His ‘persuasive truth’ was that regardless of what we might see or calculate, something exists: as he said: “Being is.” Whatever we might think about reality, it is self-refuting to argue that nothing exists.

Are you familiar with the argument 'existence' or "is" is not a predicate.
"is" is merely a copula to align the object with the predicate.

So rightly we cannot stop with "Being is".
Rather it should be "Being is XYZ."
Then we verify whether the above proposition is real or not.

So Parmenides' or your claim is just moot, it is a non-starter.

The issue is not 'nothing exists' is unsound, but
rather whatever claimed to exist must be verified and justified with sound and valid arguments based on real elements.

[uwot]

Are you familiar with the argument 'existence' or "is" is not a predicate.

Yes. Are you familiar with the content of your own thread?

Asserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

Yes, but not wrong.

"is" is merely a copula to align the object with the predicate.

So rightly we cannot stop with "Being is".

You'll need to take that up with Parmenides.

Rather it should be "Being is XYZ."
Then we verify whether the above proposition is real or not.

Once more:

I am not arguing for anything that Parmenides or Descartes said beyond the two things they said which are incontrovertibly true.

So Parmenides' or your claim is just moot, it is a non-starter.

Er, no mate. You don't get to tell me I'm claiming something I have explicitly said I am not claiming and then tell me it's not a valid claim.

The issue is not 'nothing exists' is unsound, but
rather whatever claimed to exist must be verified and justified with sound and valid arguments based on real elements.

No it isn't.