Mu

Flatten your dogma by repeatedly reversing over it with your karma.

Starboy

Too bad scientific philosophers don’t do science. I have little respect for most of what comes out of philosophy, a human endeavor that has not produced anything new or useful for the last two thousand years.

Anything that is observed by science IS both natural and real. From a scientific point of view there is no such thing as the unobservable world, there are only those things that have been observed and those that have not. This could be another unstated tenet of science and thus more scientific dogma. It is the direct result of making nature the final scientific authority.

Starboy

Calvan

Starboy, I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher. I am a retired unsuccessful farmer. However, I become alarmed when any endeavor is discredited by implication or otherwise in the interests of depreciating its value. Does one have to do science to have the facility to be open to new idea while at the same time seeking authentication of those new ideas from his own experience of his universe? How am I to take your comment about the usefulness of philosophy as anything other than dogma given that I cannot authenticate your negative judgment about it from my own experience? And if what you are saying is dogma, then is not the veracity of what you say in question?

By your own admission I assume you intend to convey that there is little room for dogma in science except the conviction bordering on certainty that is held by the scientific community in the value of their approach to reality. Is it therefore your approach to reality that philosophy is useless?

I am provoked to respond respectfully to these comments. How is it a scientific finding to conclude there is no unobservable world if scientific practitioners have not observed them? I would be willing to propose your observation as an assumption but to pose it as a conclusion leaves a very “dogma-tic” taste in my mouth.
I, for one, would be willing to suggest that there are worlds, however micro in nature, that are unobservable by current instruments.
Finally, making either nature or religion the “final authority” of any doctrine or knowledge is equally dogmatic, is it not? I suggest it is the willingness to attribute certitude (which is beyond being changeable) to any existing knowledge or premise.
Calvan

Starboy

Greetings Calvan,

On this board I have seen several devotees of philosophy make comments about reality. It is obvious to me that if they actually did study reality their opinions would certainly be more informed if not more useful. If you wish to take my comments as dogma, then I am flattered for that would mean that you take me as an authority rather than a poster making their own opinion clear. Again you are free to think as you like. There does appear to be an unstated idea that all dogma is bad. It is bad only if it leads to useless or harmful ends such as Christianity. There are some dogmas that can serve us well, such as the dogma of banking ethics and of judicial ethics. People suffer when business men, bankers and judges are not dogmatic in their professional ethics.

That was not my intent at all. I wished to point out that what separates science from religion is not that one uses dogma and the other is dogma free. They both appeal to authority. There is no reason a priori to think that the approach of science is any more sound than that of religion. The only discriminating factor is how much better one works vs. the other. It is pragmatism that I apply when I choose one over the other as an approach to reality. Using the same yardstick with philosophy it too comes up wanting.

That is the point Calvan, it is unspoken scientific dogma. If a scientist cannot find a natural explanation for an observed phenomenon they NEVER conclude that it is supernatural. They simply conclude that there must be a natural explanation that they are as yet unaware of. It is at these times that new science is discovered.

Calvan, you have missed my point entirely. It is not dogma that separates science from religion. Can there be any clearer difference between religion and science. Science – authority of nature, religion – authority of god.

What makes science work and religion fail is that nature exists and god does not.

Starboy

American Agnostic

Dogma is simply a belif system that is to be held above question. It , of course, usually applies to religion. Science is not a dogma because it nothing is held to be above suspicsion. Science ENCOURAGES people to question the foundations of the system. If you did this to dogma back in the rennisiance then you'd find the inquestor at your door.

Starboy

So AA, supernatural explaination are Okay as long as they are done naturally?

American Agnostic

But if God intervenes in nature than we should be able to observe the consequences. So far we have seen no evidence of divine intervention. Since it goes against the mountain of evidence fcompiled to date, it is best to simply look for a naturalistic explaination.

Starboy

AA, how do you know that god has not intervened? There is no test that separates what is observed between the natural or the supernatural. If it is observed it IS natural.

Starboy

Calvan

Greetings Starboy,

If I were god, and I experienced something about myself that was not observable by others, would that mean that I did not observe it?

Calvan

Greeting again Starboy
Starboy, I enjoyed your interpretation of what I said. Lovely!
You do sound like an authority. And not only do I respect that, I think that it is great that you speak with authority. I too speak with authority. And I would like to think that I speak with authority that is generated by my life-time of experience and observation. Nothing more and nothing less.

Calvan