Can a bad person be a philosopher?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I agree of Nicholas of Cusa that "all science (knowledge) is conjecture."

I don't know what Nicholas meant by the word translated as "conjecture", but the notion certainly does not fit our knowledge that water is H20, or that Mars is the fourth planet. Those are not conjectures according to the following definition(s) of the word.

con⋅jec⋅ture

 –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.


–verb (used with object) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

[Reconstructo]

Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven. Or do you think the conservation of energy was "proven"? It turned out to be conjecture, however useful at the time.

And then Newton's conception of space and time were (by our current lights) incorrect. Also Newtonian physics was not perfectly accurate about the movement of the planets, because he didn't "know" about relativity.

Einstein refused to believe that god plays dice.

Technology is evidence, yes, but not proof. Proof enough, I agree. But not a finished description of "reality."

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven.

Nothing is proved in absolute terms, but that is not a standard that anyone maintains outside of metaphysics and religion; in the latter case because of faith, in the former case because of a high opinion of human reason. Courtrooms demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt". Science demands preponderance of evidence. Proof, in the real world, is a functional thing, not an absolute thing. And besides, even if it's true that nothing is proved in science, what other domain in life has absolute proof? Nothing.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven. Or do you think the conservation of energy was "proven"? It turned out to be conjecture, however useful at the time.

And then Newton's conception of space and time were (by our current lights) incorrect. Also Newtonian physics was not perfectly accurate about the movement of the planets, because he didn't "know" about relativity.

Einstein refused to believe that god plays dice.

Technology is evidence, yes, but not proof. Proof enough, I agree. But not a finished description of "reality."

I don't know what you mean by "conjecture", but no scientist doubts any of the laws of thermodynamics, including the first law of the conservation of energy. Scientists use the term "proof" to mean, evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt,and that is what scientists believe is true of the first law. If overwhelming evidence is not proof, then what is proof?

[Reconstructo]

E= MC2.

Energy can be created from matter, and matter from energy. This "law" of the conservation of energy was the mathematical/conceptual description of a tendency. And one that I doubt any educated scientist continues to believe in. Hiroshima was "proof" that the conservation of energy wasn't proven after all. The "sufficient" evidence was misleading. At the same time this "law" was useful for the construction of technology. But today's success is tomorrow's prejudice. I describe the critical aspect of philosophy as an attack on prejudice. I think the word "proof" encourages a static view of truth.

"Proof" like any other word has a different meaning depending upon its context. For instance, in a legal context as opposed to a geometrical context. Note that Spinoza cast his ethics in a pseudo-geometrical form. This form did not imply a pragmatic/dynamic view of truth.

If all you mean by "proof" is a sufficient amount of evidence for the purpose at hand, I have no objection to that. But my suspicions about the word "proof" are focused on philosophical "proofs." And in the realm of abstract thought especially (such as Hegel's or Descartes') "opinion" remains the word I prefer.

I identify myself with pragmatism, enjoy the study of science, etc. I think highly of Kuhn, Feyerabend. If you haven't read them, I recommend it.

It's exactly because I love the critical aspects of philosophy that I prefer the word "opinion." And linguistic philosophy has instilled within me an irony in regards to this word "proof," except in the everyday pragmatic sense of sufficiently convincing. As I said before: proof is actually persuasion, and "truth" is a matter of consensus.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I don't know what Nicholas meant by the word translated as "conjecture", but the notion certainly does not fit our knowledge that water is H20, or that Mars is the fourth planet. Those are not conjectures according to the following definition(s) of the word.

con⋅jec⋅ture

 –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.


–verb (used with object) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Water is also h3O...There is also the water of life in several languages, including Gallic, and whisky is part of the word...To exclude water in all its kinds is to talk about only h2o as h2o...It is easier to say h2o is water than to say water is h2o...To be fair, most people qualify water that is not h2o, and in the same fashion that people refer to property rights, because they are not rights at all, but privilages through which society expects to see a gain...

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

E= MC2.

Energy can be created from matter, and matter from energy. This "law" of the conservation of energy was the mathematical/conceptual description of a tendency. And one that I doubt any educated scientist continues to believe in. Hiroshima was "proof" that the conservation of energy wasn't proven after all. The "sufficient" evidence was misleading. At the same time this "law" was useful for the construction of technology. But today's success is tomorrow's prejudice. I describe the critical aspect of philosophy as an attack on prejudice. I think the word "proof" encourages a static view of truth.

"Proof" like any other word has a different meaning depending upon its context. For instance, in a legal context as opposed to a geometrical context. Note that Spinoza cast his ethics in a pseudo-geometrical form. This form did not imply a pragmatic/dynamic view of truth.

If all you mean by "proof" is a sufficient amount of evidence for the purpose at hand, I have no objection to that. But my suspicions about the word "proof" are focused on philosophical "proofs." And in the realm of abstract thought especially (such as Hegel's or Descartes') "opinion" remains the word I prefer.

I identify myself with pragmatism, enjoy the study of science, etc. I think highly of Kuhn, Feyerabend. If you haven't read them, I recommend it.

It's exactly because I love the critical aspects of philosophy that I prefer the word "opinion." And linguistic philosophy has instilled within me an irony in regards to this word "proof," except in the everyday pragmatic sense of sufficiently convincing. As I said before: proof is actually persuasion, and "truth" is a matter of consensus.

I do not think you read that correctly... Matter is a form of energy with much of the energy as we know energy gone out of it... Yet, a rock sitting on a table still has energy...You would know it for example, if you dropped it on your toe, but kinetic energy is only another form...With our science and technology we can take a huge amont of matter that is naturally radioactive, and by speeding the nuclear reaction up only slightly can cause a great release of energy..Well; everything is radioactive... The nuclear material in our bombs are continually releasing huge amounts of energy, which is matter moving... If you can get even a slight increase of that movement, the matter -moving at the speed of light -which is light- takes a lot of matter with it at lower speeds, or by gravitational friction it gives up speed and releases heat energy...E equals does not say what energy is, except in gross, but shows a certain ratio of mass to energy which Hosserel, God forgive my spelling, had seen before, only his math was a little off, and he was figuring it from mass, which we have enough of, and not solving for energy which no thinks they have enough of...

So, you are wrong to say that energy is not conserved... All matter is conserved energy, and all mass has energy... What happened in the explosion is that matter realeasing energy was made to release it at a slightly faster rate...There was no more matter or less after the fact, but some was moving at at faster rate, and as light which is matter, or was reabsorbed by the mass of the earth as heat which is also light...

I like your last lines and agree with them to a point... Truth and proof are forms of relationshiip, and without the stuff of relationship we have no proof or truth...These qualities are given meaning as abstractions by our lives which the truth makes possible... The relationship between truth and humanity is a dynamic; it is life itself... And no one should have more truth than is socially acceptible or they will lose life and the meaning that goes with it... We need enough truth to survive, and that is plain, since most of us are surviving... We will need a little more truth to have lives secure and moral...

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

Water is also h3O...

No it is not. That would be a positively charged hydronium ion, not water. Hydronium ions will exist in a certain proportion within water, but water itself it is not. Nor is tritiated 3H2O the same as H3O.

What does this all have to do with the topic, by the way??

[Reconstructo]

I respect your criticism, Fido. But perhaps you will admit that our mental-model of energy has changed significantly over time. And, am I wrong, or was it once believed that energy and matter were two different things?

Ah, these slippery words...

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No it is not. That would be a positively charged hydronium ion, not water. Hydronium ions will exist in a certain proportion within water, but water itself it is not. Nor is tritiated 3H2O the same as H3O.

What does this all have to do with the topic, by the way??

You must be kidding me...Heavy water is not water??? Why is water a part of its name??? Is it not because it is a form of water??? It is qualified, as aqua vitae is qualified';and I am correct that if you want to talk about water as it never acually is: Pure Water, then you talk about h20, and everyone will figure out that you are talking about unqualified water...Never presume that when you are talking about an abstraction that everyone sees the same form as yourself...

Look; I am considered a thread Hijacker around here, and I don't want to be a bad person trying to be a philosopher... To me, that charge is just the last refuge of a wanna be... Oh, I can't win this argument, so you are thread hijacking...It is an ad hominin... What good is it to learn many subjects reliably if you must attack every question from the same plane as everyone else...The more you know the more possibilities present themselves...

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 07:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I respect your criticism, Fido. But perhaps you will admit that our mental-model of energy has changed significantly over time. And, am I wrong, or was it once believed that energy and matter were two different things?

Ah, these slippery words...

When I was a child I spake as a child...