we need teleportation frankly

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    No science is not a form of philosophy. One is based on logic from priors or argument over Ordinary Language and the other is based empirical data. They have vastly different approaches and achieve vastly different goals. I am not going to ask a scientist the proper way to live and I am not going to ask a philosophy department head to explain momentum.

    They might help each other, on occasion, but healing each other does not mean one is a subset of the other.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is both the rational (a priori) approach, and the empirical (a posteriori) approach.

      The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.

        It really isn’t. The presumption argument requires that you are a mind reader and can be 100% certain that you know what unstated priors a person is operating under. If they deny them, you mere reassert it. It is a non-falisifable claim. Thus the attempt to disprove science required a return to faith.

        Fish do fine and know nothing about water. Birds fly and don’t understand aerodynamics. The vast majority of life in existence conducts energy production via ATP and only a small fraction of the human race has understood that. Fireflies don’t know that they are doing the most efficient form of light production from chemicals ever found.

        The whole presumption apologetics argument is a garbage heap only advocated for by people who value faith over experimental methods. A false attempt to sub in a bad contextualization from the things itself. You don’t need to have a fully worked out from first principles understanding of the universe to conduct a basic experiment. It might be helpful, maybe, but it isn’t required.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Very well. Try it a different way. You claim that scientists have priors that you have discovered. Please provide evidence of your claim. Use the scientific method and try to disprove it and fail.

            • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Very nice. But now it’s not an empirical debate, it’s a linguistics debate. How do you define the scientific method?