When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

[shunyadragon]

https://infidels.org/library/modern/...aturalism.html

Your acting just like many fundis using a biased source to justify your aganda.

No, Methodological Naturalism is NOT dependent Metaphysical Naturalism. IT is dependent on a physical existence that is consistent and predictable attributes. The Baha'i Faith believes this in harmony of the physical attributes of our physical existence with the attributes of God.

[Jim B.]

They are decisive facts that may be verified by scientific methods. You have nothing beyond that.

Still waiting for a decisve truth. Simple physical facts are not decisive truths.

Still waiting . . .

Once again, phenomenal truths are not physical truths. Correlation is not identity. Scientific methods can verify bundles of dispositions to react that are associated with consciousness (the "Easy Problem") but not the actual conscious state itself (the "Hard Problem"). Begging the question does not an argument make.

The 'decisive' truths of science can be no more certain than the metaphysical assumptions upon which science is based.


There are mathematical and logical truths and moral truths (e.g. causing unnecessary suffering is wrong).

Each and every one of your posts posits philosophical truths. How 'decisively true' would you say that they are?

[Jim B.]

Nevertheless, many theists DO believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.

Yes, and many do not. My point is that you tend to reduce the complex to the very, very simple.

No, it is established Evolutionary Theory. Morality is a product of Natural Selection as it lends itself to our survival as a social species – something we share with other intelligent social animals to a limited degree in simpler forms.

Once again, you're doing the same thing. You can apply the same reductive analysis to art and philosophy and culture in general and to all of human understanding. I'm not arguing with Natural Selection as a physical mechanism but I am arguing with it as all-explanatory for absolutely everything about human beings. How can we possibly know that this is true? If it IS true, how could we know it is true? Wouldn't Natural Selection shape and limit our ability to understand Natural Selection?

We have learnt from experience that “facts” are based upon information which can be tested and shown to be factual data. The rest is subjective - based on personal opinion, emotions or social pressure – NOT decisive truths.

That wasn't what I was referring to, and I think (I hope?) you know it.

No. Science is an empirical method of acquiring information which is fact-based, measurable and observable.

No, I'm talking about the foundations of science, the assumptions the make it possible. It's not just this fortress that's floating in space.

I’ve not argued that there is a logical entailment between, merely that it is a reasonable metaphysical conclusion.

It's the most reasonable conclusion IF you start out with a given set of pre-suppositions. That's why I was saying that deciding on metaphysical worldviews CANNOT be decided on purely empirical grounds but must be done so on pre-empirical, i.e. metaphysical/logical grounds.

Well, compared to the general public less than half “practicing natural scientists” are theists.

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/

And what does that have to do with anything?! I was talking about the fact that they are COMPATIBLE.

[shunyadragon]

Once again, phenomenal truths are not physical truths. Correlation is not identity. Scientific methods can verify bundles of dispositions to react that are associated with consciousness (the "Easy Problem") but not the actual conscious state itself (the "Hard Problem"). Begging the question does not an argument make.

The 'decisive' truths of science can be no more certain than the metaphysical assumptions upon which science is based.

I never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science. Please reread my posts concerning what I said and do not misquote me.

Methodological Naturalism in science is objective, decisive, because it is subject repeated confirmation, predictability, consistency, and changes when new knowledge becomes available, and your claims are subjective such as Morals not decisive truthe.'. Also the knowledge of science is almost universally accepted as the knowledge of our physical existence. The concept of morals and what you call suffering is almost universally in disagreement.

Your problem arises when every religion, church, culture and variation 'claims' that their spiritual teachings, morals and ethics, and view of suffering is believed as 'decisive truths' and they are not only different and variable, bit msot often in conflict.

There are mathematical and logical truths

No, these are human constructs from the human perspective for functional purposes, tools and do not represents 'truths.' Math is subject to a logical system of proving theroms and proofs that are useful tools for everyday human use, science and technology. and are not described as 'decisive truths.'

and moral truths (e.g. causing unnecessary suffering is wrong).

Moral truths are far to variable and subjective, and in wide disagreement to be considered 'decisive truths.'

In fact, suffering is simply a part of naturally being human and not necessary nor unnecessary. You are making subjective philosophical and theological claims if you go beyond simply objective observations concerning the nature of morals and suffering. It is more than obvious objectively that suffering is a natural attribute of humanity and most higher life on earth.

Each and every one of your posts posits philosophical truths. How 'decisively true' would you say that they are?

I have never proposed that 'decisive truths' exist from the human perspective, and you have failed to propose anything 'decisive,' predictable and consistent outside science.

Again, there are not any 'defined decisive truths' truths in science.

Still waiting . . .

[Tassman]

Yes, and many do not.

Most theists believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics. Certainly, they interpret the divine strictures differently but ultimately, they believe that such authority rests with their deity.

My point is that you tend to reduce the complex to the very, very simple.

The principle of parsimony dictates that a theory should provide the simplest possible, viable explanation.

I'm not arguing with Natural Selection as a physical mechanism but I am arguing with it as all-explanatory for absolutely everything about human beings.

Every animal, including us is an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. This fact informs everything that we are.

That wasn't what I was referring to,

No, I'm talking about the foundations of science, the assumptions the make it possible. It's not just this fortress that's floating in space.

The foundations of science are as old as the existence of intelligent species endeavoring to understand the world around them.

deciding on metaphysical worldviews CANNOT be decided on purely empirical grounds but must be done so on pre-empirical, i.e. metaphysical/logical grounds.

And what does that have to do with anything?! I was talking about the fact that they are COMPATIBLE.

[metacrock]

"No, it is established Evolutionary Theory. Morality is a product of Natural Selection as it lends itself to our survival as a social species – something we share with other intelligent social animals to a limited degree in simpler forms."

Sorry this statement is misreading. There is no factual scientific proof of the nature of ethics. To say it is "established evolutionary theory" does not men that it is factual or proven it only means it's part of the body of work in rhetorical discussion. That is also one discipline subsuming another's domain. scientists are not qualified to talk about ethics.

[metacrock]

Shunyadragan: Moral truths are far to variable and subjective, and in wide disagreement to be considered 'decisive truths.'

Meta: That is a Philosophical assumption you are going to have to back it up with some empirical proof. Show me the numbers justifying that statement?

Shunyadragan:
In fact, suffering is simply a part of naturally being human and not necessary nor unnecessary.

Meta:
O yes that is so established by empirical objective means, so much so that almost no humans believe it.

Shunyadragan:
You are making subjective philosophical and theological claims if you go beyond simply objective observations concerning the nature of morals and suffering. It is more than obvious objectively that suffering is a natural attribute of humanity and most higher life on earth.

Meta: hey look Jim, Here is where we get to use the cliche about pots and kettles.

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragan: Moral truths are far to variable and subjective, and in wide disagreement to be considered 'decisive truths.'

Meta: That is a Philosophical assumption you are going to have to back it up with some empirical proof. Show me the numbers justifying that statement?

No numbers simply ecessary, simply just factual observations in history for diverse, conflicting 'beliefs of different societies, cultures and religions. These are than subjective claims. All the different diverse, and conflicting religions, cultures claim their beliefs, morals and ethics are 'decisive truths.'

Shunyadragan:
In fact, suffering is simply a part of naturally being human and not necessary nor unnecessary.

Meta:
O yes that is so established by empirical objective means, so much so that almost no humans believe it.

The problem remains the claims are subjective, and most of the various religions, divisions and cultures do not agree.

Shunyadragan:
You are making subjective philosophical and theological claims if you go beyond simply objective observations concerning the nature of morals and suffering. It is more than obvious objectively that suffering is a natural attribute of humanity and most higher life on earth.

Meta: hey look Jim, Here is where we get to use the cliche about pots and kettles.

Not a coherent response.

Problem remains no 'decisive truth' provided.

[Tassman]

There is no factual scientific proof of the nature of ethics. To say it is "established evolutionary theory" does not men that it is factual or proven

That is also one discipline subsuming another's domain. scientists are not qualified to talk about ethics.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry this statement is misreading. There is no factual scientific proof of the nature of ethics. To say it is "established evolutionary theory" does not men that it is factual or proven it only means it's part of the body of work in rhetorical discussion. That is also one discipline subsuming another's domain. scientists are not qualified to talk about ethics.

Ther is no scientific proof of anything.

The question remains there has not been any 'decisive truths' presented from the theological nor philofophical perspective.

[MaxVel]

So much for your pretensions of cleverness. Methodological Naturalism, the foundation of the scientific method, is grounded in Metaphysical Naturalism. I’ve already said that. Frequently. My point, which you willfully misinterpreted, is that science investigates the natural world. It has no need of the agenda of metaphysicians exploring the possibly of non-natural occurrences.

And my point, which you have repeatedly demonstrated you aren't capable of grasping, is that science itself, as a process or a method, depends on metaphysical beliefs.

Secondly, your position is itself untenable and self-refuting, since you cannot justify its claims by the very methods you espouse. You can't do any kind of scientific experiment to demonstrate that knowledge only comes from repeatable, verifiable, objective evidence. When asked to discuss the foundations of science you simply blank, and switch the subject. When given any kind of detailed explanation of any other position you bail out by saying it's 'wordy' or 'loquacious'.

It's plain that you're simply not intellectually equipped to even engage in a conversation that challenges the basis for your scientism. Whether or not your position is true, you can't discuss in any meaningful way any objections to it.

You do 'do metaphysics', just that you do it badly and ignorantly, rejecting as useless that which you do not comprehend. You mock others as 'armchair metaphysicians', perhaps that's true. But you yourself are lying in the dirt outside the house, having never ever even crossed the threshold.


What science justifies metaphysical naturalism?

Since your response is that the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for science is metaphysical naturalism; and your claim was that science "...is adept at providing its own “necessary and sufficient conditions and foundations” " I await your explanation of what science shows metaphysical naturalism to be a true understanding of the nature of reality.

[Jim B.]

I never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science. Please reread my posts concerning what I said and do not misquote me.

Methodological Naturalism in science is objective, decisive, because it is subject repeated confirmation, predictability, consistency, and changes when new knowledge becomes available, and your claims are subjective such as Morals not decisive truthe.'. Also the knowledge of science is almost universally accepted as the knowledge of our physical existence. The concept of morals and what you call suffering is almost universally in disagreement.

You never claimed 'decisive truths' in terms of science, and then you immediately claim that Methodological Naturalism is "objective, decisive, etc,..." You immediately contradict yourself. Which is it?

Your thinking about morality is deeply muddled. Just because there is disagreement about a subject matter is a very bad reason to conclude that there is no fact of the matter. And there IS universal agreement about core moral principles in virtually all human societies. The difference of opinion enters in factual beliefs, NOT moral beliefs. As far as needlessly causing suffering, there is virtual universal consensus among all human societies that such action is wrong.

Your problem arises when every religion, church, culture and variation 'claims' that their spiritual teachings, morals and ethics, and view of suffering is believed as 'decisive truths' and they are not only different and variable, bit msot often in conflict.

Once again, we're not talking about religion, remember? Try to read what I actually write.

No, these are human constructs from the human perspective for functional purposes, tools and do not represents 'truths.' Math is subject to a logical system of proving theroms and proofs that are useful tools for everyday human use, science and technology. and are not described as 'decisive truths.'

Begging the question again without any evidence or argument to back it up. If math and logic are nothing more than "human constructs", then they must be constrained by nothing other than human convention, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Hmmm.... Also, if they are nothing more than human constructs, then science must be as well, since science is quantificational and logic-based through and through.

Moral truths are far to variable and subjective, and in wide disagreement to be considered 'decisive truths.'

No, as I said, there is wide consensus as to core moral beliefs. the divergence emerges in the area of non-moral factual beliefs.

In fact, suffering is simply a part of naturally being human and not necessary nor unnecessary. You are making subjective philosophical and theological claims if you go beyond simply objective observations concerning the nature of morals and suffering. It is more than obvious objectively that suffering is a natural attribute of humanity and most higher life on earth.

I'm not talking about suffering itself. I'm talking about the fact that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause suffering in another.

I have never proposed that 'decisive truths' exist from the human perspective, and you have failed to propose anything 'decisive,' predictable and consistent outside science.

Again, there are not any 'defined decisive truths' truths in science.

Still waiting . . .

But you claimed above that MN IS decisive, and by implication the ONLY form of decisive knowledge possible. I have never argued that MN is not decisive knowledge, only that it is the ONLY possible form of such knowledge. Please state clearly what your position is.

Let me try this again:

1. Only empirically verifiable statements can be decisively true.

2. 1. is a philosophical, i.e. epistemological statement.

3. Because 1. is a philosophical statement, it is not strictly an empirically verifiable statement.

4. Because 1. is not an empirically verifiable statement, it cannot be 'decisively' true.


So either statements such as 1. are false or philosophical statements such as 1. can be decisively true.


As I've stated, there are defined decisive truths outside of science. First demonstrate that you can

1) State your position clearly, and
2) that you've read and understood what I've written so far...

Waiting....

[Jim B.]

The principle of parsimony dictates that a theory should provide the simplest possible, viable explanation.

The problem with the principle is that it demands an explanation of the phenomenon at hand, and not a reduction of said phenomenon to something else.

Every animal, including us is an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. This fact informs everything that we are.

But that's just silly. Of course that's explanatory at a certain descriptive level but it cannot explain everything that we are. Can it fully explain the above comment you just made? Wouldn't there be a recursion problem? It cannot explain what the life of a composer or a topologist is. Why stop at organic algorithms? Why are we not ultimately quantum events?

What you said was: “One wouldn't even know what a 'datum' is or a 'fact' without already sophisticated powers of discrimination and an already rich conceptual web to fit them into”. But your “rich conceptual web” is merely subjective information based on personal opinion without the wherewithal for testing and establishing factual data.

No. You're confusing different meanings of the word "subjective' like Shuny does. And science IS grounded on tacit background knowledge, not explicit instrumental technical know-how.

The foundations of science are as old as the existence of intelligent species endeavoring to understand the world around them.

Yes, you make my point. The foundations are PRE-scientific, pre-explicit, pre-linguisitic.

It’s not. “Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” – Wiki. And while there is no logical entailment between them, empirical science is nevertheless compatible with such a metaphysical worldview.

MN is a metaphysical worldview, and as such must be arrived at via metaphysical means. There are no empirical methods to test and verify a metaphysical worldview. Is there a sufficient reason for existence itself? This is not a scientific/empirical question.

Some scientists regard science and religion to be compatible, statistically the majority do not – especially in comparison with the general public.

Again, more meaningless information.

[metacrock]

Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
Sorry this statement is misreading. There is no factual scientific proof of the nature of ethics. To say it is "established evolutionary theory" does not men that it is factual or proven it only means it's part of the body of work in rhetorical discussion. That is also one discipline subsuming another's domain. scientists are not qualified to talk about ethics.

Ther is no scientific proof of anything.

right science is about killing hypotheses but that does not mean it can kill religion, religion is not a scientific hypothesis, there are other forms of knowledge.

The question remains there has not been any 'decisive truths' presented from the theological nor philofophical perspective.

That is drivel,nonsense. You hide from the fact that ultimate existential questions are beyond the scope of science or empirical data to answer. To answer such questions you have to give up the search for proof, or even verisimilitude tied to proof. you are not wiling to explore other forms of knowledge because your ideology tells you science is the only kid for of knowledge. That is just ideological brainwashing,.

[metacrock]

your posts are great Jim,