Do things only exist if humans have proof ?
Do things only exist if humans have indispensable proof? This seems to be the backbone of many arguments. Can things exist that humans are completely unaware of ?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Even in Mathematics and subsequently in Logic (we know it since Godel) there are true statments without not only prove but that, moreover, can´t have once.
And Science, it´s cutting edge is research about what we still do not know or not enough. A never ending goal.
And Science, it´s cutting edge is research about what we still do not know or not enough. A never ending goal.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Maximusmax Science have no bussines with Absolutes as why "all things" exists.
To deal with such absolutes is not part of the scope of Science.
The certain other side of the same coin is that any not natural interpretation of the natural world is, by consruction, strictly not Scientific.
And Science, being incomplete, provisory and approximate is still and no doubt the most trustable and better explanation of what it is.
As Sagan said, a candle in the dark.
To deal with such absolutes is not part of the scope of Science.
The certain other side of the same coin is that any not natural interpretation of the natural world is, by consruction, strictly not Scientific.
And Science, being incomplete, provisory and approximate is still and no doubt the most trustable and better explanation of what it is.
As Sagan said, a candle in the dark.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Maximusmax Descartes was a good mathematician for his time but a philosophical fool.
We do not exist because we think.
We think because we exist.
About your worry.
We know more about life and the human species than in any time before.
Each school kid knows now quite better that what the sum of all philosophers of the past did.
It took about 400 years of a certain worldview the one of Science, to make this happen.
And the light will go on growing, patiently, step by step, with errors and corrections, with still unanswered questions, not in the scope of the times of individuals.
Of course, it´s our right and freedom to make questions outside our powers to answer.
That´s good!
What would not be honest is to obtain "answers" from only our minds and call them Science.
That would be a fraud.
We do not exist because we think.
We think because we exist.
About your worry.
We know more about life and the human species than in any time before.
Each school kid knows now quite better that what the sum of all philosophers of the past did.
It took about 400 years of a certain worldview the one of Science, to make this happen.
And the light will go on growing, patiently, step by step, with errors and corrections, with still unanswered questions, not in the scope of the times of individuals.
Of course, it´s our right and freedom to make questions outside our powers to answer.
That´s good!
What would not be honest is to obtain "answers" from only our minds and call them Science.
That would be a fraud.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Maximusmax In other words.
Scientists have found fruitful not to mess with Absolutes, First Questions and Ultimate Answers.
May be, just may be, philosophers should have a simmetrical wise parsimony when making assertions about what actualy is the scope of Science and (looking at the results) certainly not their scope.
Scientists have found fruitful not to mess with Absolutes, First Questions and Ultimate Answers.
May be, just may be, philosophers should have a simmetrical wise parsimony when making assertions about what actualy is the scope of Science and (looking at the results) certainly not their scope.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Maximusmax To define something (from latin, to trace it´s limits with what that something is not) is preciselly part of identity.
It´s a limit, but a curious one.
Since it was defined, at the very birth of Science, it gave some "paradoxical" results.
- We become to know better about the material Universe in 400 years than in millenia and millenia of unfruitful specullative though.
- We put inside the scope of scientific research a lot of what for millenia and millenia was thought as the Feud of the First and Ultimate mysteries.
It´s a limit, but a curious one.
Since it was defined, at the very birth of Science, it gave some "paradoxical" results.
- We become to know better about the material Universe in 400 years than in millenia and millenia of unfruitful specullative though.
- We put inside the scope of scientific research a lot of what for millenia and millenia was thought as the Feud of the First and Ultimate mysteries.