The very general and higher concepts used by science are not empirical, i.e. they are not scientific.
They are.
rbistolfi and I probably have something like Tarski's indefinability theorem in mind, except applied to science. IOW, scientific truth cannot be defined in its own terms, though one can certainly use it to support assertions like 'gravity acts on bodies of mass' and 'nature lets certain species survive and others perish'.
LOL, exactly. Vanger: They are not empirical, show me a photo of a inductive jump
. And in a tarskian sense, they are not members of the scientific language, they are over it in a superior logical level, they are science´s meta-language.
Ask to a scientific what is a thesis and you will find a poor answer.
Thesis is a verbose or written expression of an assumption or idea.
You are right about the assumption, but generally speaking, scientifics known how to use those words, but they have no deep understanding about their conceptual tools. That is because they dont take the epistemological course at college, that is because they dont have to.
And is OK, because is not science job to define "thesis".
No, it is science's job to define all instruments it uses. Including meaning of words too.
That is an ideal. That task was proposed (to reduce every concept to an empirical one) but we never advance to the goal. That is because cant be done, but some analytics *Putnam* cant accept a defeat.
What means "freedom"?, right and wrong?, justice?
"Freedom" is an illogical and purely subjective word, meaning the non-existance of barriers for one's deeds or self-improvement. Different people make different excemptions from this ultimate version, such as "as long as freedom doesn't hurt other's freedom", "as long as you respect copyright", "as long as you support bringing freedom to other countries", etc.
There is no such thing like a subjective word. The language is public in essentia. This important: every word points to something and is for someone. There is nothing like a private language, the true about myself, etc. And if you were right about the word "freedom" that doesnt implies that that investigation should be droped. "Some things are subjectives" well, may be, that doesnt mean there is nothing to say about them. In your definition there is some non-scientific terms, and philosophy has the job to investigate them, i.e. "subject". The religion can jump in, because is a non empirical topic, with no definitive "truth" to close the speech about it. All we can do is make a speech to put some light over it. Religion is that kind of speech. I prefer philosophy almost all the time, but religion is a genuine approach to the question.
Science cant answer them, philosophy is giving try and religion did and does
What means WinAPI? Linux can't implement it, ReactOS is giving a try and Windows did and does implement it.
Sorry, I dont get it. What I was trying to say is this: there is some questions which -given the kind of the problem- cant be answered by science. This is because they are not empirical, but still a genuine problem. Another reason is they are in a field that has no "true" and "false" in a scientific sense. There is nothing to compare with, there is no possible contrast at all.
Philosophy, is trying, and always will be, because this discussion will be no closed because of the nature of the question, is open by essentia. There is no definitive truth about this.
Religion, mediated by faith, has closed the discussion, they have a "truth" (not in a scientific way, not in a philosophycal way) in which they believe.
But what about this: have we a fate? or we are absolutely free? what happens when we die?
Is BSOD a divine intervention? Viruses - are we doomed to suffer them? See, I can ask questions like this too.
Sorry, you lost me again. May be you are right, we are doomed to viruses. Mines are more general and they implies an answer to your questions.
Religion, the religious words, are a light pointing over the darkest things concerning humans, and different religions drop different kinds of light and even some points to no place (like many oriental ones).
No, they just simulate it. You can't be sure that this light shows real things, not simulated. And different "lights" show different things on the same place, you know.
Taken. There is no other thing but that. But, Why you call it a simulation? If the only thing is the simulated one, we cant call it a simulation properly. Every language-game works in the same way, including the science one. The answer we obtain depends on the form of the question.
As I said, there is no "true religion" but there is some trying to put light over important problems. I am not a *very* religious guy, but I wish to, and I am always paying attention...
They are trying, but the have no basis. Except of belief in some words.
They dont need one. We do metaphysic because we do. We have no choice. We make an assumption about words just like the Scientific assume a
ceteris paribus clause, or a inductive jump, or a logical structure which is based on an axiomatic system built over the assumption of mathematical induction. That would be an
assumption2!!!
Evil can be avoided and every noble person will work to accomplish that task.
What is evil to avoid to?
[/quote]
That would be a freak killing 30.000 persons, myself talkin hard to my brother, a guy breaking a perfect vl install, etc. I have my doubts over the term too, as I said in my post, a lot of conditions work as an attenuation. That doesnt mean we cant agree in a few things to be avoided.
Sorry for the long post
PS: When I said this discussion could be productive, I was mwaning this, thanks Vanger
