So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?
Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that’s the only way this analogy makes any sense…
Everyone dies saban. Are you saying that if everyone doesn’t die peacefully in their sleep, and unless no one ever gets bruised or cut or hurt or harmed in any way, it means there is no god?
Empiricism, as an epistemological view, argues that knowledge is based on experience and that it is tentative and probabilistic, subject to revision and falsification.
Metaphysics, on the other hand, traditionally explores mind-independent features of the world, including the nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division into categories of being.
It’s so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it’s like, religion, you really can’t take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary…but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn’t believe in anything anymore if it weren’t for my lucky astrology mood watch.
Steve Martin
That just to try and get you into a better headspace? Levity, anyone?
Due to the abstract nature of its topic, metaphysics has received criticisms questioning the reliability of its methods and the meaningfulness of its theories.
The problem is that metaphysics isn’t even meaningful.
You obviously can’t say the same for science. Because science is the reason we can write together.
Metaphysics boils down to Descartes: “I think therefore I am”, and that’s it, it never got any further!!
The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.
War is not a product of science.
There is no doubt that science has increased quality of life, health and life expectancy for human kind in general.
But I’m sure you have problems daily with napalm, and don’t have any of the benefits science has brought us.
Now you’re just trying to pivot without having admitted that your analogy only makes sense if you assume everyone who gets cancer must have done something to deserve getting it.
So anything bad that ever happens to you is your own fault?
Do you just walk around through life assuming cancer patients did something awful to deserve their disease? Cause that’s the only way this analogy makes any sense…
Everyone dies saban. Are you saying that if everyone doesn’t die peacefully in their sleep, and unless no one ever gets bruised or cut or hurt or harmed in any way, it means there is no god?
sabin FTFY.
But true statement based on empirical evidence.
Also true statement based on empirical evidence.
Why can you understand one, but not the other?
Empiricism, as an epistemological view, argues that knowledge is based on experience and that it is tentative and probabilistic, subject to revision and falsification.
Metaphysics, on the other hand, traditionally explores mind-independent features of the world, including the nature of existence, the features all entities have in common, and their division into categories of being.
That just to try and get you into a better headspace? Levity, anyone?
Also from Wikipedia on metaphysics:
The problem is that metaphysics isn’t even meaningful.
You obviously can’t say the same for science. Because science is the reason we can write together.
Metaphysics boils down to Descartes: “I think therefore I am”, and that’s it, it never got any further!!
And what’s the point of quoting a joke?
Metaphysics addresses “why”. Like, “why are we doing science anyway?”
Can’t answer that with the scientific method.
The why question is a nonsense question. For science it’s obvious, because it improves our lives.
But if you are thinking along the lines of why do we exist, or why does the universe exist, those are questions that don’t have a rational answer.
The questions that may have answers are based on the how not the why.
Because it improves our lives? Like napalm or sarin gas or nuclear bombs?
You’re pulling arguments out of your hat without any empirical justification. You think because you pronounce that science is done to improve lives that makes it so?
If you want to make your case, be sure you don’t get philosophical. Just prove your position using hypotheses and testing.
I don’t know to discuss things with someone who decides everyone else has to justify their position while insisting their position is self evident.
War is not a product of science.
There is no doubt that science has increased quality of life, health and life expectancy for human kind in general.
But I’m sure you have problems daily with napalm, and don’t have any of the benefits science has brought us.
Now you’re just trying to pivot without having admitted that your analogy only makes sense if you assume everyone who gets cancer must have done something to deserve getting it.
"