Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 8:17 am
...whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways.
That's sometimes the case. But it's irrelevant, really. "What the truth is," is an ontological question. "What we interpret" is an epistemological question. Or, to put it another way,
what some people know is not the limit of
what the truth is. They're not the same thing.
...philosophical questions do not have definitive answers.
Is that so? How do you prove that?
If it were right, then there would, of course, be no value in doing philosophy at all. Logic and reason would not lead more reliably to truth than speculation and imagination would. A guess would be as good as a scientific experiment, and an error as good as a proof. Is that really what you mean? I think it cannot be. So what justifies the above claim?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 1:40 pmCan you be more neutral, and eliminate the "loaded" bits in your framings, maybe?
Fair enough, I shall repeat them in their original form:
What on Earth makes you think that a centuries old book
Well, that's what I mean by "loaded," Will. "Oldness" is not an indicator of "truthfulness." A book is neither better or worse for being "old" or "young." Truth is quite a different issue than age. And besides, I don't recall having hung any argument on "oldness."
...is a better source for how the world and we came to be than contemporary science?
When it comes to actual science, I don't find that they conflict.
How far should we stretch the definition of "science"? When Fauci called COVID measures like masks harmful, unproved injections"the science," should we have believed him? If we should have, then were are his masks and injections now? Why has the whole world now rejected "COVID science," as Fauci once touted it? Are we all just "unscientific"? Or worse, "antiscientific"?
No. Fauci lied. It's that simple. And we all know it now, as exhibited by the fact that we've now abandoned all his measures. But wait: was that not "the science"?
We were told it was...
What's the secret here? Only that it's quite possible for somebody to claim "the science says," and to be totally lying. Or badly mistaken. Or ideologically possessed. Fauci had bits of all three, probably.
We could give other examples. At one time, it was claimed that "science" showed that the earth was cooling off far too rapidly, tending toward a new ice age. That was "climate science." Now we are told that "climate science" says we're rushing toward an inferno. How could "the science" say both things, things so obviously mutually contradictory?
Perhaps the kindest take is that old "climate science" was less refined than our present "climate science." (The less kind interpretation would be that ideological wishes are affecting what we view as "climate science," but we don't necessarily need to go that far.) But then, we should be very glad if we didn't believe the old "climate science." It was wrong. The new "climate science" tells us it was.
So the point is simply this: before we say "X contradicts
the science," we need to say which alleged "science" is being contradicted, and how, and allow people to assess the truthfulness of that claim. It is really not good enough to ask questions about "science" as if it were all one thing, and if the mere mention of the word gave sacred authority to whatever other utterance we followed it up with.
But you know that.
So what status have the origins speculations of common men? Are they "science"? Or are they something else? And what if a contrary science, such as, say, the infinite regress problem, or the argument from design, speak contrary to these speculations? Which of them gets to be "the science"?
Who in their right mind would think a justice system based on human sacrifice is a good idea?
Which "justice system" are you referring to? I don't think I mentioned any "systemic" justice at all... And I know no "justice system" that is premised on human sacrifice...not since, maybe the Aztecs. Do you perhaps not mean anything related to a "system" at all?