 |
|
03-10-2017, 02:01 AM
|
#301
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
On its face this is an assassin statement, tantamount to saying due to science science is dead.What is philosophy?Man's attempt to "actually" understand and to move beyond mythos. For 2400 of philosophy's 2600 year history "scientist" were referred to as natural philosophers.Scientific inquiry is an epistemological approach to knowledge.Surly, Hawking knows all this,so contextualization of his statement would probably clear up what he meant.Anyone read the book?
|
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...y-is-dead.html
The above is his second quote claiming philosophy is dead due to science, the first such claim is contained in his book The Grand Design.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 02:16 AM
|
#302
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Just because a person believes something does not mean their belief is justifiable or correct. People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does a correct belief.
Hawking believes due to science philosophy is dead. Just because Hawking holds this belief does not make it true objectively that philosophy is dead. The test is what is reasonable and not someone's contrary opinion.
|
I noticed my brain inserts words that my fingers do not.
People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does a correct belief.
Should have read; People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does not ensure it is a correct belief.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 08:24 AM
|
#304
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
I am using philosophical definitions. To speak of truth as "absolute" is to say that something is true absolutely, or not relative to something else. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside (not relevant) of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Universality is the notion that universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism (not relative to something else).
I know I am going to regret asking you, but why do you perceive a significant distinction between the terms to justify your above question?
|
Now, don't get all defensive on me. I just wanted to ask for clarification purposes to make sure I'm understanding you. There are universal truths in temporal reality, such as Aristotle's Change and Permanence in the Universe. This is an undeniable universal truth; however, it is only truth relative to this universe. On the other hand, the laws of logic, while also universal truths, are more than that because they transcend this universe. The laws would be valid even if this universe did not exist; for their source is found in an eternal God. This would make them absolutely true.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 11:16 AM
|
#305
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...y-is-dead.html
The above is his second quote claiming philosophy is dead due to science, the first such claim is contained in his book The Grand Design. |
"Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed"...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...mology/251608/
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 11:30 AM
|
#306
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
|
I prefer Basil Fawlty's version...
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 01:14 PM
|
#307
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
"Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed"...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...mology/251608/ |
Hell will be loaded with "brilliant" atheistic evolutionists. In God's eyes, Hawking and his ilk are fools.
And just what is the "philosophy of physics": That the universe and all in it can be understood and explained by the laws of physics?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 02:22 PM
|
#308
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Hell will be loaded with "brilliant" atheistic evolutionists. In God's eyes, Hawking and his ilk are fools.
And just what is the "philosophy of physics": That the universe and all in it can be understood and explained by the laws of physics?
|
"The group aims to bring a philosophical approach to the basic questions at the heart of physics, including those concerning the nature, age and fate of the universe...Maudlin is a philosopher of physics whose interests range from the foundations of physics, to topics more firmly within the domain of philosophy, like metaphysics and logic."
Not just "How", but "Why".
I prefer to hope that those you would condemn to hell have some active charity (agape) going for them, some unconditional love in light of Rom 2:13-16 and 1 Cor 13.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 05:19 PM
|
#309
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
"The group aims to bring a philosophical approach to the basic questions at the heart of physics, including those concerning the nature, age and fate of the universe...Maudlin is a philosopher of physics whose interests range from the foundations of physics, to topics more firmly within the domain of philosophy, like metaphysics and logic."
Not just "How", but "Why".
I prefer to hope that those you would condemn to hell have some active charity (agape) going for them, some unconditional love in light of Rom 2:13-16 and 1 Cor 13.
|
I don't condemn anyone to hell. Scripture calls atheists fools and unless they repent of their foolishness, they will perish in hell forever.
An aside, I'd bet my last dollar that Doc Fesser would find this philosophy of physics utterly laughable, given his penchant for classical philosophy.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 07:33 PM
|
#310
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I don't condemn anyone to hell. Scripture calls atheists fools and unless they repent of their foolishness, they will perish in hell forever.
An aside, I'd bet my last dollar that Doc Fesser would find this philosophy of physics utterly laughable, given his penchant for classical philosophy.
|
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013...tality-of.html
You can settle when I travel to Panama City Beach in July.
Also, "Fesser" would be on board that Genesis is not a treatise on science.
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 08:06 PM
|
#311
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And just what is the "philosophy of physics": That the universe and all in it can be understood and explained by the laws of physics?
|
Right! You just don't like the answers. You'd be happier if the sun orbited the earth. 
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 08:13 PM
|
#312
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Scripture calls atheists fools ...
|
World's first ad hominem argument. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
An aside, I'd bet my last dollar that Doc Fesser would find this philosophy of physics utterly laughable ...
|
Who cares what Doc Fesser thinks? Is he supposed to be the second coming?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 08:32 PM
|
#313
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
|
Oh goodie, we can settle in the pesos I have stuffed in one of the mattresses around here. But seriously...Feser expressed open contempt in his "Last Superstition" for what passes for philosophy today. Now, he's making nice with the "philosophy of physics" whatever the heck that even means? Oh well...another confused Catholic. 
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2017, 10:47 PM
|
#314
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
World's first ad hominem argument.
Who cares what Doc Fesser thinks? Is he supposed to be the second coming? |
C'mon, Actor, you know the answer.
The Laws Of Physics determined that Boxcar would bring up Feser's name and misspell it, that I would respond to him, followed by your expression of apathy.
Are we to blame for not overcoming our religious meme to date, which no one has ever seen, felt, tasted, heard, or smelled?
__________________
"I like to come here (Saratoga) every year to visit my money." ---Joe E. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2017, 08:16 AM
|
#315
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
C'mon, Actor, you know the answer.
The Laws Of Physics determined that Boxcar would bring up Feser's name and misspell it, that I would respond to him, followed by your expression of apathy.
Are we to blame for not overcoming our religious meme to date, which no one has ever seen, felt, tasted, heard, or smelled?
|
Thank you! Atheists will never understand that one accident can explain another. There's no rhyme or reason to the universe; therefore, there cannot be any rhyme or reason to the organic life the universe accidentally spawned. There is simply no way to rationally explain our words, actions or beliefs because there is no rational basis for the existence of the universe -- no purpose, no intentionality. Why do atheistic evolutionists have a such a tough time grasping this?
P.S. Please light a candle for me on your next church visit for the sin of misspelling Doc Fesser's name. (Maybe you should make that two.) 
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
