Philosophy Now Forum

Bertrand Russell wrote: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.

Like theology, it [philosophy] consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.

Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.

Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.

Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.

To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.

History of Western Philosophy + -(p. xiii)

• Analogy:
  What Russell implied is in a canyon scenario,
  science is grounded solid on the physical grounds of canyon cliffs,
  philosophy explores further into the canyon by building structures with solid foundation into to the physical sides of the canyon, and extending out into the canyon,
  theology took a leap of faith and jump into the canyon chasm with the belief their God will ensure a safe landing on the canyon floor.

Philosophical Realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality. Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind.

[Philosophical] 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#:~

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am Here is a description by Russell explaining the position of
science [grounded empirically] on one side
extending to the No Man's Land of philosophy and
the La La Land of dogmatic theology on the other extreme without any verified empirical grounds.

Bertrand Russell wrote: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.

Like theology, it [philosophy] consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.

Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.

Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.

Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.

To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.

History of Western Philosophy + -(p. xiii)

Russell stated what is from Science is the empirically-known which we can stand on solid grounding based on verification and justification within a scientific framework.

While standing on the empirically-known with one foot, we can extend one foot out to feel philosophically what is within the no-man's-land of the empirical unknown.

But we cannot jump off with two feet away from the no-man's land to view the totality of all-there-is in the La La Land of woo woo metaphysics.

However, theologians without any grounding to empirical reality, jumped across the No-Man's Land into La La Land with their dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge.

Russell point is, with philosophy, we must always leveraged on the empirical and not take a leap of faith into the canyon into a "splattered" death of knowledge.

Note this analogy,

• Analogy:
  What Russell implied is in a canyon scenario,
  science is grounded solid on the physical grounds of canyon cliffs,
  philosophy explores further into the canyon by building structures with solid foundation into to the physical sides of the canyon, and extending out into the canyon,
  theology took a leap of faith and jump into the canyon chasm with the belief their God will ensure a safe landing on the canyon floor.

Why are the theologians and theists are so desperate to jump across and into the canyons without any grounding on any empirical solidness?

Why the theologians and theists are so desperate to jump into the chasm to la la land is due to the find consonance to relieve the dissonance arising from an existential crisis.
While they get immediate relief to the dissonance, the consequences is their beliefs in some cases bring terrible evil and violent acts to others and humanity.

The point here is,
theists and theologians need to understand why they are do desperate to take a leap of faith to jump into la la land.
It is recommended that all humans, if they want to explore the no-man's land they must built mechanisms to stand on that are solidly grounded to empirical science.

Is the above a clear explanation of the position between the scientists, philosophers and theologians?

Views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am Russell stated what is from Science is the empirically-known which we can stand on solid grounding based on verification and justification within a scientific framework.

While standing on the empirically-known with one foot, we can extend one foot out to feel philosophically what is within the no-man's-land of the empirical unknown.

But we cannot jump off with two feet away from the no-man's land to view the totality of all-there-is in the La La Land of woo woo metaphysics.

However, theologians without any grounding to empirical reality, jumped across the No-Man's Land into La La Land with their dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm Yeah, well, the problem is that many physicists who are standing on the solid ground of what is empirically-known, have also jumped across No-Man’s Land and into their own unique versions of La La Land.

For example, I suggest that the mother of all “scientific” absurdities is Hugh Everett’s “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” where it is theorized that due to the interactions taking place between the particles of light as you gaze at your computer screen,...

...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

And that’s all stemming from just one person staring at their computer monitor for a few seconds, never mind the near infinity of other quantum events that occur each and every second throughout the rest of the universe.

And the point is that the so-called “solid ground” of that which is “empirically-known” is spawning bizarre concepts of reality that are infinitely more ridiculous and implausible than what theists have imagined.
_______

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse. - wiki

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:50 am Your personal view or morality resides firmly in LaLa Land, and is based on faith alone that you are right.
Why do you do this? When you answer that question you shall have the answer to your own.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am Here is a description by Russell explaining the position of
science [grounded empirically] on one side
extending to the No Man's Land of philosophy and
the La La Land of dogmatic theology on the other extreme without any verified empirical grounds.

Bertrand Russell wrote: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.

Like theology, it [philosophy] consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.

Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.

Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.

Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.

To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.

History of Western Philosophy + -(p. xiii)

Russell stated what is from Science is the empirically-known which we can stand on solid grounding based on verification and justification within a scientific framework.

While standing on the empirically-known with one foot, we can extend one foot out to feel philosophically what is within the no-man's-land of the empirical unknown.

But we cannot jump off with two feet away from the no-man's land to view the totality of all-there-is in the La La Land of woo woo metaphysics.

However, theologians without any grounding to empirical reality, jumped across the No-Man's Land into La La Land with their dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge.

Russell point is, with philosophy, we must always leveraged on the empirical and not take a leap of faith into the canyon into a "splattered" death of knowledge.

Note this analogy,

• Analogy:
  What Russell implied is in a canyon scenario,
  science is grounded solid on the physical grounds of canyon cliffs,
  philosophy explores further into the canyon by building structures with solid foundation into to the physical sides of the canyon, and extending out into the canyon,
  theology took a leap of faith and jump into the canyon chasm with the belief their God will ensure a safe landing on the canyon floor.

Why are the theologians and theists are so desperate to jump across and into the canyons without any grounding on any empirical solidness?

Why the theologians and theists are so desperate to jump into the chasm to la la land is due to the find consonance to relieve the dissonance arising from an existential crisis.
While they get immediate relief to the dissonance, the consequences is their beliefs in some cases bring terrible evil and violent acts to others and humanity.

The point here is,
theists and theologians need to understand why they are do desperate to take a leap of faith to jump into la la land.
It is recommended that all humans, if they want to explore the no-man's land they must built mechanisms to stand on that are solidly grounded to empirical science.

Is the above a clear explanation of the position between the scientists, philosophers and theologians?

Views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:55 am I don't have a deep knowledge of MWI but as defined below,

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse. - wiki

it is against my agreement with the wave function collapse.

I believe the MWI is grounded on and extrapolated from mathematics rather than solidly on the empirical-philosophical.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm ...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:46 am

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm ...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

I am pretty certain you deeply misunderstand MWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Bryce Dewitt wrote: “...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:58 pm Definite knowledge requires observation, observation requires quantification, quantification cannot be proven empirically, thus empiricism is grounded in a phenomenon which is not empirical.

You have yet to prove the existential crisis is the founding of religion empirically. Religion, such as the fear of sinning, can cause the existential crisis. Not paying the bills can result in the existential crisis. Anything can cause the existential crisis, with the existential crisis causing anything such as the mid life changes of an individual.

Reducing problems to a religion, in itself is a religious dogma.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:55 am I don't have a deep knowledge of MWI but as defined below,

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse. - wiki

it is against my agreement with the wave function collapse.

I believe the MWI is grounded on and extrapolated from mathematics rather than solidly on the empirical-philosophical.

Right, but that doesn’t stop famous physicists such as Max Tegmark and Sean Carroll from promoting the MWI as possibly being true.

Anyway, the reason for my reply was to point out to you that all humans,...

...regardless of whether they are scientists who are standing on the solid ground of that which is empirically-known, or if they are theists who are standing on a rainbow of mythological fantasy,...

...are all capable of taking excursions into “La La Land” when it comes to making-up creation stories.

And to the detriment of the point you were making in your OP, the irony is that it is the scientific community (not the theistic community) that is guilty of creating and promoting one of the most ridiculous creation stories of all (again, the MWI),...

...for it implies that you, me, and our entire universe may have literally come into existence - 5 minutes ago - as a result of some quantum event that occurred between the electrons in the methane of a raspy fart that was blown-out in an alternate universe.

At the risk of over-using my joke, I call it the “tiny-toot theory” (as a counter to the Big Bang theory).

The ultimate point is that “La La Land” is not solely populated with theists alone.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:30 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:46 am

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm ...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

I am pretty certain you deeply misunderstand MWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Well, I’m pretty certain that it is you who doesn’t understand the implications of the MWI.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this forum, Bryce Dewitt is the theoretical physicist who coined the term "many-worlds" and was an early and avid champion of Everett's Theory.

In an article for the magazine, Physics Today, Dewitt stated the following:

Bryce Dewitt wrote: “...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense...”

With the above in mind, along with the fact that I am making such a big stink about how ridiculous the MWI is, you need to take up your complaint with those who actually believe such nonsense is possible.
_______

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:46 am

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm ...trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of you, along with trillions of fully real and fully autonomous copies of the entire universe, have literally “sprung into existence” in the time it took you to read this sentence.

I am pretty certain you deeply misunderstand MWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem