Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:05 pm Monism has to be the most logical possibility purely because everything is connected to everything else
Dualism creates a split between the mental and physical even though this is not actually true in reality
The mental cannot exist without the physical so then treating them as separate categories is fallacious

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:39 pm One does not actually need a model to understand that everything is connected
Because it can be based upon simple observation that clearly demonstrates this

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:56 pm Observing something and modelling it arent the same as observing is sense perception and
nothing else whereas modelling is processing that perception so that it can be understood

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:21 pm But the brain is not engaging in higher order abstract thinking which is what would be required for any model
Automatic processing of sense perception is not on the same level as it does not involve the prefrontal cortex

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 pm A model is a mathematical or scientific means of explaining reality
For this is what the word means and is most commonly referring to

A representation of information is an encoding of some pattern of information within some other pattern or instance.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 pm The best models of reality are based on abstract thinking not just sense perception
Evolution / Gravity / Electromagnetism / Quantum Mechanics / General Relativity

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 pm Were it just sense perception we would never have discovered any of them and never would be able to
Since we would be no better at understanding reality than any other member of the animal kingdom is

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 pm Our highly developed prefrontal cortex is what gives us this ability and makes us as a species entirely unique
All animals have sense perception and some is superior to our own but only humans can understand it as well

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 pm It is therefore wrong to compare automatic modelling of sense perception with the abstract modelling of physical reality

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:03 am So if humans are fundamentally evil and science is an extension of humans hence is evil, are these scientific findings true and can they be trusted?

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:03 am So if humans are fundamentally evil and science is an extension of humans hence is evil, are these scientific findings true and can they be trusted?

Why so skewed here?
You need to exercise the Principle of Charity in this case.

The generally view is DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil.
Re good, note,

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

As for the potential for evil, I have posted on this issue here and many times in other threads.

Re Science I believe the impact on humanity is more good than evil.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:03 am So if humans are fundamentally evil and science is an extension of humans hence is evil, are these scientific findings true and can they be trusted?

Why so skewed here?
You need to exercise the Principle of Charity in this case.

The generally view is DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil.
Re good, note,

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

As for the potential for evil, I have posted on this issue here and many times in other threads.

Re Science I believe the impact on humanity is more good than evil.

But that means the scientific discovery of humans being fundamentally evil is wrong then as those who practice science are fundamentally good. The argument was that people are fundamentally evil, not fundamentally good and evil and the science used to observe it is either wrong or deceptive as if this the case than

The honesty of the case proves people are not fundamentally evil in which case the study is wrong.

The study is warped because the people doing it are fundamentally evil.

Science is evil as science is done by people who are fundamentally evil.

Etc..... You have to keep in mind your "belief" in science equates science to a religious dogma and you are no different than a religious person in these respects. Personal belief will get you know were with me.

• Humans are fundamentally evil
  Science is an activity of humans
  Therefore Science is fundamentally evil

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:37 am
Why so skewed here?
You need to exercise the Principle of Charity in this case.

The generally view is DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil.
Re good, note,



As for the potential for evil, I have posted on this issue here and many times in other threads.

Re Science I believe the impact on humanity is more good than evil.

But that means the scientific discovery of humans being fundamentally evil is wrong then as those who practice science are fundamentally good. The argument was that people are fundamentally evil, not fundamentally good and evil and the science used to observe it is either wrong or deceptive as if this the case than

The honesty of the case proves people are not fundamentally evil in which case the study is wrong.

The study is warped because the people doing it are fundamentally evil.

Science is evil as science is done by people who are fundamentally evil.

Etc..... You have to keep in mind your "belief" in science equates science to a religious dogma and you are no different than a religious person in these respects. Personal belief will get you know were with me.

Point is you were too hasty and was too quick with this syllogism which is unsound.

• Humans are fundamentally evil
  Science is an activity of humans
  Therefore Science is fundamentally evil

As I had complained, you are too superficial most of the time and using logic that are unsound.

Basically, Science is a tool 'invented' by humans just like an axe as a tool is invented by humans.

To find out whether the findings are true or can be trusted, the proper approach is to find out whether the scientists had applied the Scientific Method with peer review properly in arriving at their conclusion i.e. 'Humans are fundamentally evil'.

Note the OP did mention 'good', the appropriate counter would be Humans are Fundamentally good, or in my case, Humans are Fundamental Good and Evil.
You on the other hand ignorantly attack Science as evil using bad logic.

Science is neutral of value.
If you want to critique Science, you can turn to the Philosophy of Science to find out whether Science is an effective tool of knowledge or not.

Philosophy of Science Section.
viewforum.php?f=12