Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 11:44 pm And also remember for future reference that any interpretation based upon induction has the potential to be false

Facts, or truth, scientific or philosophical, is not established by means of induction. Scientific facts are established by means or rational identification and concept formation and cannot be false.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:14 am If you have fun playing with semantics and want to believe in miracles, fine.

The difference between assertions about the past and predictions about the future are semantic to you?
Well, ok! Tell me what will happen tomorrow then, Your Clairvoyant Highness.

The word "miracle" simply refers to any unexpected event. Is just a word to describe surprise - it signals that learning is taking place.

You didn't expect that what happen could happen but it did. A miracle! You just learned that the impossible is possible.

If miracles (read: surprises) didn't happen nobody would learn anything. If the word "miracle" triggers you, then you probably have the emotional intelligence of a potato.

RCSaunders wrote:
Scientific facts are established by means of rational identification and concept formation and cannot be false

Scientific facts and laws and theories can at any time be subject to potential or actual falsification
That is because knowledge arrived at by induction cannot be regarded as absolute only provisional

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:20 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 11:44 pm And also remember for future reference that any interpretation based upon induction has the potential to be false

Facts, or truth, scientific or philosophical, is not established by means of induction. Scientific facts are established by means or rational identification and concept formation and cannot be false.

Why not?
If you insist on the above, you are being delusional.

There is NO certainty to scientific fact but they are only conditioned upon empirical evidences as verified within the rules Scientific Framework.
Whatever is considered scientific facts/truths/theories are at best polished conjectures, or polished hypothesis [Popper].

Ever since the emergence of the Scientific Framework, loads of scientific 'facts' or truth had been abandoned upon new evidences that countered the older "facts".

In science, a theory is superseded or becomes obsolete when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it an inadequate, incomplete, or simply false description of reality.

• Contents
  1 Superseded theories
  1.1 Biology
  1.2 Chemistry
  1.3 Physics
  1.4 Astronomy and cosmology
  1.5 Geography and climate
  1.6 Geology
  1.7 Psychology
  1.8 Medicine
  2 Obsolete branches of enquiry
  3 Theories now considered incomplete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersede ... in_science

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 5:04 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Scientific facts are established by means of rational identification and concept formation and cannot be false

Scientific facts and laws and theories can at any time be subject to potential or actual falsification
That is because knowledge arrived at by induction cannot be regarded as absolute only provisional.

Thus, are you implying that absolute knowledge can be known by deduction??

The most reliable knowledge we can arrive at is via induction thus is only provisional or the best provisional as conditioned by the respective Framework of Knowledge.

In a way, whatever is knowledge is always eternally-provisional and there is no final point where human can ever know the supposedly really-real-objective-reality.

From another more realistic perspective, it is more realistic to state there is no really-real-objective-reality in the first place. We are only speculating there is one as driven by desperate psychology arising from an existential crisis.

Science [classical], as a convenience, merely ASSUMEs there is a really-real-objective-reality to be discovered as such Science's focus is never on a really-real-objective-reality

Note Meno's paradox;
How can one know what is really-real when we do not know what it is in the first place.

Here is another perspective to it;

that you can’t come to know something that you didn’t already know.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 1:17 am There are no miracles. Any religion or ideology that claims there are miracles is automatically out of court.

A miracle is an imaginary event or phenomena that is impossible. If an event occurs that is possible it is not a miracle, it is simply a natural event. If an event is imagined that is impossible, it cannot and does not occur. The concept, "miracle," is self-contradictory.

As usual your terms are too rigid, thus had caused so much confusions.

It is critical you define 'miracles' precisely within context;

IEP wrote:In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume offered two definitions of “miracle;”
first, as a violation of natural law (Enquiries p. 114);
[second] shortly afterward he offers a more complex definition when he says that a miracle is “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (Enquiries, p. 115n).

This second definition offers two important criteria that an event must satisfy in order to qualify as a miracle:
It must be a violation of natural law, but this by itself is not enough;
a miracle must also be an expression of the divine will.
This means that a miracle must express divine agency; if we have no reason to think that an event is something done by God, we will have no reason to call it a miracle.

Generally the contentious issue with the term 'miracles' is how Hume had defined it.
Theists rely on the above definition to justify their God exists as real, else the "miracles" would not have happened.

Since God is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically, there is no such miracles from a non-existing God.


The other definition of "miracle" is something extra-ordinary natural event where the cause is not easily identified.

• Miracle:
  -a wonder; marvel.
  -a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/miracle?s=t

The above is recognized as a natural event but the natural cause is too complex and beyond normal comprehension.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
are you implying that absolute knowledge can be known by deduction ?

No because science is not deductive so therefore knowledge pertaining to observable reality can only be provisional
But since science is an eternally self correcting discipline then with new knowledge it becomes less wrong over time

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science [ classical ] as a convenience merely ASSUMES there is a really real objective reality to be discovered
as such Sciences focus is never on a really real objective reality

Science makes no claim about the nature of reality but simply studies observable phenomena and its properties
Whether reality is real or objective is an ontological question so is therefore one for philosophy not for science

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:44 pm

Flora wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:51 am As you know we don't understand many things. For example- Mind. We don't understand mind.

No knowledge can be based on what one does not know. Knowledge must be based on what one can know, not on what one's limited abilities preclude them from understanding.

I think we are talking about "miracles" and not knowledge. A thing which is based on what we don't know, but still seem to be occurring in real. It's perfect that knowledge can't be based on what we don't know, but miracle is. That is why it's called miracle or something supernatural.

If you do not understand what the mind and its nature are, then you don't, but it is a mistake to assume no one else does. The mind is human consciousness, which differs from all other animal consciousness because it is volitional, intellectual, and rational. [See my articles: The Nature of Consciousness and Mind]

I said we don't know mind in the sense we cannot explain each and every phenomena relating to mind in such a way that it is objectively proved that mind work this way, and it is convincing to everyone, like how it's done in science. There's no theory of mind which is convincing to everyone. That's why I said we don't know Mind, and I think I am not wrong because knowledge is about knowing objectively or perfectly such that we can explain why something behave the way it behave, and it's not the case with our knowledge of Mind.

Again, it is only what we can and do know that matters. Nothing can be said about what we do not know.

Scientifically speaking, we don't know about Mind, but we talk about it. You too talk about Mind, but you don't know about it scientifically. On what basis you talk about Mind? (I hope you understand the difference between Brain and Mind or Mind and Body). I think you talk about Mind on the basis of your experience. You experience Mind, but don't know anything about it.

What we do know is that nothing can both be and not be. If something exists, it is impossible for it to not exist (in the same way at the same time). We know that a thing cannot be one thing (a tree for example) and also another thing (an egg for example). In logic it is called the law of non-contradiction. In other words, it is impossible for two contradictory things to both be true. In logic that is called the law of excluded middle. A thing is either true or it isn't.

I think here you are talking about what can be seen and what can't be seen, in terms of exist and not exist but you have to realize what we see is only effects and not causes. We don't see causes. Just because we don't see causes doesn't mean causes don't exists. Causes exists but we can't see it, in anything scientific. So, in a way, causes exists and don't exists, depending upon being invisible and being visible. Do you see any contradiction in "causes" for being in existence and non-existent? I think, you don't.

So, first you need to acknowledge the existence of what cannot be seen, because that's the nature of reality. Causes cannot be seen, in any field of scientific enquiry, but it exists. It's effects can be seen and considered physically real, and you need to acknowledge effects first, and then you can start figuring out the causes.

So tell us, are you ready to acknowledge the effects first, before you ask for causes to be explained? Are you ready to recognise and acknowledge that something happens and exists about which we don't know the causes for?

Are you ready to recognise and acknowledge that somethings exists that we call miracle or supernatural, if we don't know the causes? And these things are natural, but some people call it miracle or supernatural, because they can't comprehend the reality as they don't know or even sense the rules to understand the nature of reality. So tell us this first.

So you know it is impossible for anything that is true to also be untrue. You know that it is impossible for anything that is one thing to be something else.

It is possible for everything to be true and untrue on the basis of unseen and seen, respectively. It is possible for everything that is one thing to be something else. For example :- a plant is also a collection of cells which in turn are just atoms and molecules. It is based on our level of understanding and person's ability to understand.

You now that it is impossible for something that must behave in a certain way to behave in some other way.

It's possible. Mind is an example.

Flora wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:51 am As you can understand this thread is little scientific and not purely philosophical, so we need some scientific logic also along with philosophical logic. So here is a link as an example for kind of miracle that seems impossible but occurs in real world.
Link to reincarnation cases with change in religion, race or nationality - https://www.reincarnationresearch.com/c ... ality-race

I have a very good friend who is Shinto and thoroughly believes in reincarnation. She believes everyone has had a former life. I once asked her how she explained the increase in world population since there were more and more people. Where did the new one's come from if everyone lived before. The question bothered her so I never pressed it.

Well, I can easily answer these questions about reincarnation but it would be futile as you don't
even recognise and acknowledge it first that reincarnation actually happens and it exists, or there is something that makes them look real about their existence. It seems, you don't want to explain anything and just running and hiding away from any kind of explanation. You are shifting the goal post.

So I'll ask you if you believe everyone is reincarnated. If so, where do new people come from and where did the first people come from? If everyone is not reincarnated, why should anyone be and how does one know if they are reincarnated or a whole new individual?

Okay, now let's come to reality. What's going on in reality regarding reincarnation. What the researchers find.

This is important, that first you need to make a difference between people who are involved in the research and those who are not involved in it. And you need to make a difference between the opinions of both, and give importance to those who are involved in research, because this is what logical is. If you want the otherwise, you need to explain. I think it's simple.

So here's what going on with basics regarding reincarnation:-

Some children remember their past life, and that corresponds to physical locations, real people in that location, real situations in past life, real and minute details that no one can know other than the person involved.

Some children remember past life in another country and know their real geographical locations, even when they never been to those countries and locations.

Some children speak language of their past life, with which they were never exposed to in current life.

Some change to a religion in current life, which doesn't believe in reincarnation, like Islam, which is radically opposed to idea of reincarnation.

Some change race, nationality, and even to identity of an ememy or aggressor. Think of Christian of Germany reincarnating as Jew of Israel.

Why would people claim all such things which is against their knowledge and beliefs? You need to explain.

I'm sorry Flora, but reincarnation is a long way from science. It is, in fact, self-contradictory superstitious nonsense.

You can ridicule anything if you want to, even quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, spherical earth, evolution can fly with ridiculing it. What will be the difference between these people who ridicule these things and you? This is why explanations and systematic study is to be followed.

Of course, reincarnation is a long way from science, but we need to first start it properly and study it systematically. You must recognize and acknowledge the miracle first before you ask for it's causation. I hope you getting it. Do you?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 9:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science [ classical ] as a convenience merely ASSUMES there is a really real objective reality to be discovered
as such Sciences focus is never on a really real objective reality

Science makes no claim about the nature of reality but simply studies observable phenomena and its properties
Whether reality is real or objective is an ontological question so is therefore one for philosophy not for science

Yes, it do not make any assertive claim about the nature of reality.

However do you agree, Science makes an Assumption that objective reality exists ontologically?

Basically Science assumes there is something objective real out there independent of subjective beliefs and opinion, else they could be chasing after an illusion.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

I have read of the above. Here is one clue.

Scientists share a view with many of the ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, that philosophers call "realism" or more specifically, "rational realism".
As part of that view, scientists assume that there are fundamental rules that nature follows.
There is only one real way that nature is and that nature operates.
Scientists assume that it is possible for human reason to figure out that one real way so they endeavor to find a correct understanding of that one real way. "In other words, most scientists assume that beliefs about what is real do not affect what is real. Truth results only when our beliefs about what is real correspond to what is real" (Pine, ch 2)
https://www.astronomynotes.com/science- ... -annot.htm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:34 am If miracles (read: surprises) didn't happen nobody would learn anything. If the word "miracle" triggers you, then you probably have the emotional intelligence of a potato.

If all you mean by miracle is a surprise, why use the word miracle. It's not what those who use the word, "miracle," to justify their superstitions mean.

Flora wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 10:57 am You can ridicule anything if you want to, even quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, spherical earth, evolution can fly with ridiculing it. What will be the difference between these people who ridicule these things and you? This is why explanations and systematic study is to be followed.

I wasn't ridiculing, Flora. Believe what you like. I was only expressing why I cannot believe what my own best reason makes impossible.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 9:08 am Science makes no claim about the nature of reality but simply studies observable phenomena and its properties
Whether reality is real or objective is an ontological question so is therefore one for philosophy not for science.

That's right! Science is based on the unstated premise that observed phenomena is real, but that assumption is, as you say, philosophical.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:55 am No because science is not deductive so therefore knowledge pertaining to observable reality can only be provisional
But since science is an eternally self correcting discipline then with new knowledge it becomes less wrong over time

I'm not certain how this view of science became ubiquitous, but it is wrong. At the cutting edge of scientific research is all hypothesis, not established theory, and it is always that part of science those who claim nothing is established in science address. The body of established science is not at all in question, but is so well established it is taken for granted and the almost super-human effort required to make those discoveries is ignored.

Do you really believe that the circulatory nature of blood in organisms, the basic structure of the cellular nature of protoplasm, that heavier then air flight, refrigeration, and atomic energy are only, "provisional." At one time these were all unknown or believed impossible.

The whole of the electronic world we take for granted is based on scientific principles that are absolutely certain. Is lightening one day going to be discovered to actually be little animals?

Have a look at a periodic chart of the chemical elements. Is there a single element identified on that chart that sometimes is a different element.

There is always more to learn about everything, even in science, and many scientific principles become refined and more nuanced, but basic principles are never cancelled by new knowledge. If new knowledge canceled or invalidated previous knowledge, no progress in any knowledge could ever be made.

Tell the academics that try to tell you nothing is ever certain in science to go to hell. E=IR, and always will.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:18 pm If all you mean by miracle is a surprise, why use the word miracle. It's not what those who use the word, "miracle," to justify their superstitions mean.

I don't use the word "miracle" - other people do.

I understand that when other people use the word "miracle" to describe their experiences they are talking about the emotion called "surprise".

And that's where it ends for me. I don't need to resort to pejorative narratives such as "justify their superstitions mean" to belittle people's vocation of their emotions.