Everything is a Manifestation of God

[Hobbes' Choice]

It nevertheless remains meaningful to maintain the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. Certainly Descartes, Newton and Bacon established the methodology according to which modern science is conducted but at the same time Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant took pains to point out that no truth statements could be derived from such a methodology.

The search for all knowledge has always been a (usually informal) bland of both inductive and deductive processes.

[Obvious Leo]

The search for all knowledge has always been a (usually informal) bland of both inductive and deductive processes.

This is a point which I've routinely taken pains to stress and one which was central to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. He was adamant that inductive reasoning was useless as a path to knowledge if its conclusions were in conflict with those arrived at through deductive reasoning from metaphysical first principles. In other words if a physical model appeared to indicate that effects could be uncaused or even could precede their causes then Gottfried would conclude that such a model was not a true model of reality rather than attempt to redefine the nature of reality so that reality could conform to our model of it. Such is the methodology of spcaetime physics and Leibniz would scorn it mercilessly, as would Kant and Spinoza.

[HexHammer]

Plz tell me where you test your findings, ...

Give me an example of what you mean by the philosophers empirical data?

I've just discussed with you who base ur "solid facts" on this puny article about schools using philosophy, when it in no way exactly states how it enhances the class and school.

It stated exactly how it enhanced the class and school, the students had an access the board improvement in their other studies grades. Not a puny article but an article about a case-based study.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.or ... -children/

Oh and lookee! It was a randomised trial with a comparison group.

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

Whereas you never give any evidence at all.

Empirical data = conclusions and facts.

Give me time to read the article.

I stand corrected then with the comparison group.

[HexHammer]

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

It's his arse, Hex, his arse. You're going to offend him if you call it his ass.

I believe "arse" is British english, and ass is US english, I speak US english and should easily be translated. But thanks anyways for the help.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

It's his arse, Hex, his arse. You're going to offend him if you call it his ass.

I believe "arse" is British english, and ass is US english, I speak US english and should easily be translated. But thanks anyways for the help.

Obviously US English does not leave much room for humour.

[manden]

Correct is : everything is a creation of the real creator of the universe .

[HexHammer]

Obviously US English does not leave much room for humour.

It does, there's an old famous humorous satire drawing of a dude leading G Washington on a donkey, and the caption suggest that the dude leads an ass to Washington.

[HexHammer]

Plz tell me where you test your findings, ...

Give me an example of what you mean by the philosophers empirical data?

I've just discussed with you who base ur "solid facts" on this puny article about schools using philosophy, when it in no way exactly states how it enhances the class and school.

It stated exactly how it enhanced the class and school, the students had an access the board improvement in their other studies grades. Not a puny article but an article about a case-based study.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.or ... -children/

Oh and lookee! It was a randomised trial with a comparison group.

Look at HobbesChoise he ALWAYS pulls his "evidence" out of his ass!

Whereas you never give any evidence at all.

This experiment is only implementing a tiny bit of philosophy, and not philosophy as a whole, it's a methodical process, ergo it's not philosophy as of such, but purely refined parts for children that start in school and does not has the capacity to learn greater philosophical matters, but only very basic methods.
Therefore it's wrong to say that philosophy is a superior method, again you show that you have no real idea what you are talking about, and you have a very limited understanding of very basic matters, you are a "rain man" that indeed understand very complex linear logic as in that P is truth and weird things.

[manden]

You have NO idea , but from that very much !

[Arising_uk]

This experiment is only implementing a tiny bit of philosophy, and not philosophy as a whole, it's a methodical process, ergo it's not philosophy as of such, but purely refined parts for children that start in school and does not has the capacity to learn greater philosophical matters, but only very basic methods.

I think the issue with you and Philosophy is to do with your 'experience' that Philosophy is Continental Philosophy whereas over here it is Analytical Philosophy. As such it is a methodological process and in the schools this is what they are teaching, the ability to present one's beliefs and listen to others. To make an argument for one's beliefs and to discuss them with others. To hear critique of one's beliefs and to think about it. To understand what is a logical argument and to spot illogical ones. To explore what having beliefs means and in particular ethical ones and their ramifications. To explore one's snd others moral positions, etc,etc. So I don't think there any thing wrong with this basic method as it is the method of Analytic Philosophy.

Therefore it's wrong to say that philosophy is a superior method, ...

Superior compared to what? Your unsubstantiated "marine' or playing chess or the fictional films you presented? If so than for sure as this jethod of Philosohy is teachable to all and able to be taught by most teachers.

again you show that you have no real idea what you are talking about, and you have a very limited understanding of very basic matters, you are a "rain man" that indeed understand very complex linear logic as in that P is truth and weird things.

Again you show that you talk to strawmen that you make up in your head. Mainly I suspect due to some psychological inadequacy about Philosophy due to some event in your adolescence. That you think Propositional Logic the reserve for the autistic and that it is complex tells me that I am right and you have no knowledge of Analytic Philosophy or Philosophy in general but like to sound velvet by using words like 'linear'.

[HexHammer]

I didn't present any fictional movies, but movies based on real life cases!

In modern police forces, intelligence, etc etc, we also use these methodical processes, without calling them philosophy, so yearh we I know what I'm talking about.

It was Socrates that to what I know what considered 1 of the best methodical questioners, something we have refined today, where western law enforcement and judges isn't allowed to ask leading questions.

You see the world through philosophical eyes and say that everything that can be mirrored by philosophy IS philosophy, when I say philosophy is the predecessor and has been refined and now stands on it's own.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Obviously US English does not leave much room for humour.

It does, there's an old famous humorous satire drawing of a dude leading G Washington on a donkey, and the caption suggest that the dude leads an ass to Washington.

Define: dude.

[Arising_uk]

I didn't present any fictional movies, but movies based on real life cases!

And this is your scientific approach to things is it?

In modern police forces, intelligence, etc etc, we also use these methodical processes, without calling them philosophy, so yearh we I know what I'm talking about.

So now you're a policeman and a spy are you?

They are not the same thing as philosophical enquiry. Whilst they may use logic the content and aim is different.

It was Socrates that to what I know what considered 1 of the best methodical questioners, something we have refined today, where western law enforcement and judges isn't allowed to ask leading questions.

You've obviously not read Plato.

You see the world through philosophical eyes and say that everything that can be mirrored by philosophy IS philosophy, when I say philosophy is the predecessor and has been refined and now stands on it's own.

No I don't. All I say is that in an education system that has been refined to produce specialised economic units generalised critical thinking about the subjects has gone out the door and I personally think it might be useful for the kids to do such stuff and apparently the study backs thus thought up. There reason why I think Philosophy is a useful tool in this respect is that it is exactly about such stuff and it is easy and interesting for both staff and pupils to do. So whilst I think other methods should also be introduced I think it not apparent that it is useless to use this one and again the study appears to back this up.

[HexHammer]

A_uk stop being silly!

[Arising_uk]

A_uk stop being silly!

Is that it?

Oh well I guess it was too much to ask from you.