There is no scientific method or epistemology

[Arjen]

Aedes, do you even understand the difference between actuality and potentiality? If not this discussion is pointless for you are missing every point I have made. I think the difference is most clear in the last "point" you make:

You are stringing together a logical argument, but I don't think it's based on actual human psychology or behavior. And if humans don't actually think like this, then what should we do with your explanation?

The thing of it is that thinking only kicks into action a posteriori and that what is a priori is something else. The difference between the two is, as said actuality and potentiality. What we do in actuality is deny-all (of potentiality; all). That is my reasoning. A few of my arguments you have been able to read in my previous post. I hope that you will now see what I am talking about and understand that it is not me, but you who is stringing together a logical argument and that it is your argument which doesn't take into account what is taking place; apart from what is taking place in actuality that is.

I have the awkward feeling that you are an empirist...am I right?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Aedes, do you even understand the difference between actuality and potentiality?

Yes -- the only thing I don't understand is how this is possibly related to a thread that rejects the notion of a scientific method.

The thing of it is that thinking only kicks into action a posteriori and that what is a priori is something else.

Yes, the brain is a priori and the thought is a posteriori. Thought is to the brain what walking is to legs.

The difference between the two is, as said actuality and potentiality. What we do in actuality is deny-all (of potentiality; all)...

I don't see how your argument sheds light on anything we're discussing -- nor do I agree even in the slightest your prescriptive statements about what we do. It seems so harshly opposed to the way humans apprehend the world.

I have the awkward feeling that you are an empirist...am I right?

I choose not to identify with easy labels. I find in reading philosophy that everyone makes valid points, and everyone overstates their case by virtue of systematizing it. We have senses and we're not omniscient, so we're ALL empiricists. A devout Buddhist who holds onto the doctrine of nothingness may deny it, but that doesn't mean he doesn't lift his feet higher when walking up stairs.

[Arjen]

I am sorry Aedes, I mistook you for somebody who knew at least the basics of the terms I used. Which term would you like clarified first?

[chandler]

this discussion seems to be getting unnecessarily heated (or at least awkward!). Arjen I have to agree that, while the terms you use are understandable (at least for me), the relevance of what you're saying to the original topic is hard to find. Could you maybe explain better how what you've said ties into what was said previously?

Regardless, it is bed time.

[Arjen]

It's early morning to me, but here goes:

Scientific evidence has bearing on actuality. It does not have bearing on potentiality, duh. The opening post already points to that in my opinion because at least the poster sees that something doesn't add up. The reason for that is the above stated. Aedes, however, does not see that and at first I though he simply didn't agree with me. That was a mistake on my part, I now realise.

[chandler]

Alright I'm seriously going to bed now, haha. But I would love for you to elaborate on that first statement. How does it have bearing on actuality and how is this different from the bearing on potentiality. I'll see you tomorrow.

[Arjen]

Because potentiality does not have a physical representation. Actuality does so that we can investigate it in a scientific (a posteriori) manner. Realising this there are reasons for why things are taking place in the manner they are taking place that we cannot deduce by science. That is what is creating the stated "anarchy". It is a result of our epistemological make-up.

[Aedes]

I do. But being a physician and medical researcher, with an extensive practical knowledge of both science and the scientific method, I find it absurd to make metaphysical arguments to critique scientific methodology. The concepts you're expounding are nowhere to be found in actual science. To philosophize about science is not the same as to understand it. Potentiality and actuality as you're using them are very much divorced from scientific methodology, which focuses entirely on technical questions -- so I cannot accept this argument as remotely explicative here.

Originally Posted by Arjen

I am sorry Aedes, I mistook you for somebody who knew at least the basics of the terms I used. Which term would you like clarified first?

Post reported. Please take care to keep your tone tactful. See the forum rules.

[Didymos Thomas]

Arjen - What's your point? You have made many claims, though, you have not related these claims to the topic.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I do. But being a physician and medical researcher, with an extensive practical knowledge of both science and the scientific method, I find it absurd to make metaphysical arguments to critique scientific methodology. The concepts you're expounding are nowhere to be found in actual science. To philosophize about science is not the same as to understand it. Potentiality and actuality as you're using them are very much divorced from scientific methodology, which focuses entirely on technical questions -- so I cannot accept this argument as remotely explicative here.

Be carefull not to base an argument simply on being "an authority". That is what people call petitio pricipii.

The thing of it is that your argument is exactly what the opening post means: in science there is no regard for ontological differences. Therefore things don't add up. That is why there is such a chaos in evidence. It, in all reality, is quite unscientific of "science" not to take ontological differences into account.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Arjen - What's your point? You have made many claims, though, you have not related these claims to the topic.

If have posted the relations in almost every post I have made. Right above this quote again btw.

For all those who can't wrap their heads around it a little proof on the matter:

Because of the fact that when reasoning we stumble upon certain "beginnings" that cannot be made by following the same rules as we have formulated for the processes we are reasoning on we know that it cannot have came to pass because of its own existence.

Examples:
- A primary mover (as Aristotle ment it).
- A priori thoughts (as Kant ment it).
- Black holes (and worm holes) (as Einstein/Hawkin mean it).
- Moral skepticism (as Makey ment it).