1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are human beings a type of animal?

Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by max_freakout, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. 888

    888 seasol.net

    Why should it, or any sane individual? And again it's not only science that does this... And what is your definition of supernatural? When there's been a need to hypothesise some new force or cause or whatever to explain a phenomenon, because all previously known 'natural' explanations would not fit, it's been done.
  2. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    A different philosophy - one that has no limitation built into its definition as it gets applied as science.
  3. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Are you serious? Okay:

    The causative factor of the Big Bang, the origin of life, etc etc... Those are the biggies but there are far far more smaller ones in every area of science. Where I used to work we were studying muscle regulation. What you learned in school about actin and myosin is still pretty much what we know, a little more than that but not much.
  4. 888

    888 seasol.net

    That's not very helpful. (reply to #1952)
  5. 888

    888 seasol.net

    So scientists should just come up with some random explanation for the unknown part of muscle regulation (which is what?) rather than saying they don't know? Or an alternative system to science would be able to find the whole answer where science cannot? :confused:
  6. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    No they should say they don't know but not presume an undiscovered natural cause while rejecting a supernatural one.

    In other words - no presumptions.
  7. 888

    888 seasol.net

    But what distinguishes an undiscovered natural cause from a supernatural one? (Is God's only direct point of intervention in His creation in the tweaking of muscle fibres?) Is that really a sensible approach to take?
  8. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    Where is the reason for assuming a supernatural one, by it's definition a supernatural cause can not itself be discovered, that is it is outside the world we inhabit. If we assume a supernatural cause it closes off any further enquiry.

    There are ofcourse century old philosophical problems with assuming a supernatural force like a god, namely if we use this supernatural entity to explain the gaps in our knowledge ie what created the big bang, we are left in a state of infinite regression as it begs the question 'what created the created'.
  9. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    What would give us the right to say? If you follow my reasoning, that we can't rule anything out automatically, then the hunt is still on for regular investigation. That means we still look for natural laws and such. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just as a principle that we can't rule out the supernatural where it might be.

    Good question. This is beyond the point I'm making though.
  10. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Where am I assuming a supernatural cause? Pay special attention to the point I'm making here. And no it logically wouldn't stop us from looking into microscopes.
  11. 888

    888 seasol.net

    OK, so in principle we can't rule out the supernatural, but in practice there wouldn't be any difference at all in how science is currently done.
  12. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    Well have we any evidence for direct intervention of the supernatural? How can the super-natural interact with the natural world if it is by definition outside it. The whole point of the supernatural is that is above and beyond any and all investigations, experiments or experiences of our world, so it becomes obvious that one must rule it out in any investigation of phenomena that we can encounter.
  13. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    no in principle we do.

    How can the supernatural have any interaction with the natural? And if we could come to know of this supernatural interaction it would no longer be outside the realms of examination and would be as equally demanding of explanation and study as anyother natural entity.
  14. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    Don't try to lure me into answering your second question smartypants. :p That goes into lots of theistic theory and I'm not making any claims there.
  15. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    I was saying why would anyone assume a supernatural cause at all? It is by it's own definition beyond our experience and knowledge and so considering it's possibility is absolutely pointless.
  16. dilute micro

    dilute micro esse quam videri

    No it's by our definition that it's outside it. If the supernatural exists (God), then how would we be sure that we knew God's actions and whatnot? And that's as far as I'm going on that....:mad: :hmm: :p
  17. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    by asking us to consider a supernatural cause as a possibility that is to not rule it out, you are of course making an assertion, namely that there is some value in doing so or rather some reason or value to even begin assuming it as a possibility. Like if I had a computer that wasn't working and was wondering how to fix it and someone told me I shouldn't rule out the possibility that a unicorn had sneezing on my motherboard and shortcircuited it, I would ask them why the fuck on earth they would begin to assume such a possibility at all.
  18. gorski

    gorski customised free radical

    There are some really think dickheads in this thread...:rolleyes: and around...:D

    But seriously, this is like a few kids or Monty Pythonesque...:(:hmm:

    It really is getting more and more futile...

    Because of "I want!", nowt to do with...

    Never mind...:(
  19. 888

    888 seasol.net

    How about contributing to the thread instead of forming trailing off half sentences like a senile old fool in your failed attempts at colloquial English?
  20. gorski

    gorski customised free radical

    When did you "contribute" with anything meaningful? When did you put any energy, time, effort, good will and any kind of serious expertise?!? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::p:D
  21. 888

    888 seasol.net

    Please don't tell me you think you've contributed "serious expertise" to this thread :D
  22. revol68

    revol68 what, fucking what?

    if i wanted to read the rambling wank of a pompous twat I'd stick with Baudrillard, atleast he had a sense of humour and an ironic twinkle in his mischevious eye, you on the other hand are an idiot, phildwyer without the intelligence, knowledge or charm, you aren't even a troll.
  23. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    Such as?
  24. Knotted

    Knotted Too much dancing on the fight floor

    Are there rules of science? I mean universally and historically, applying to all areas and throughout history? I doubt it very much. I think the reality of scientific practice is actually quite varied. Different subjects demand different standards, different methods, different philosophies.

    Medicine is very pragmatic, often being satisfied with, "it works but we don't know why."
    In astronomy there are no controlled experiments.
    In biology there are normative, functional notions which do not exist at all in physics.
    Then of course there are social sciences which necessarily include judgements about the attitudes of the key players.

    Also I don't really understand this stuff about 'naturalism'. Isn't the naturalist/super-naturalist distinction a product of scientific thinking, not the other way round? Does the bible regard God and miracles as supernatural for example?
  25. kyser_soze

    kyser_soze Hawking's Angry Eyebrow

    The Xtians split acts of god and the 'supernatural' into two specific camps - one good, the other generally bad and evidence of Satanic influences. AFAIR the miracles are part of God, therefore part of nature.

    FWIW - I think the whole line of super/natural argument is a wasted diversion. First off, if someone builds a working unicorn detector and detect a unicorn, and the experiment is repeated around the world, unicorns are no longer 'supernatural'. Can I just ask why everyone is getting stuck on this concept that there is no philosophy behind science - of course there is! Current science grew out of natural philosophy - indeed, as with anything that involves actual practical workings, for many years the natural philosophers and later scientists, were denigrated by the classical philosophers for the same reasons Plato and Aristotle (and now Gorski) dissed the working men, the craftsmen, those that worked with their hands...in fact, much of the disdain for working type work across the West, the disdain of the bourgeoise for the proles, comes from this basic attitude.
  26. Crispy

    Crispy Fond of drink and industry

    unicorn detector :D
    but yes, agre with everything else you wrote too
  27. Knotted

    Knotted Too much dancing on the fight floor

    I think there are philosophies (in the plural) behind science. I don't necessarily think those philosophies are completely formulated. So what I am objecting to is the idea that there is a single, known philosophy behind science. Its a tempting view for both scientists and radical critics of science alike. Scientists often like to say that they are just following a method and not a doctrine. The critics like to pinpoint some sort of metaphysical assumption where the whole thing goes wrong.

    Scientists I most admire are scientists who have scientific beliefs that are not empirically warranted. They are often wrong, but so what? Belief and imagination and the clash of ideas really drive things forward.
  28. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop communism will win

    The Big Bang may not need any causation at all. Causality, the patterns and parameters of our universe, time, space, all came into existence simultaneously (to the extent that such a definition makes sense in the early universe, or even now, on reflection). It's like asking why scientists aren't looking for a supernatural explanation of why there's no north of the North Pole. Hint: the answer has nothing to do with naturalism.....
  29. gorski

    gorski customised free radical

    Even if I did contribute in any meaningful way in this thread there aren't that many people here who can detect it... sadly...:(:hmm:

    But I did contribute aplenty, both in this and in other threads of similar nature! In fact, without me and people like me in it it would have been a really sad, self-congratulatory, empty, shallow event to such a tune that it would be completely worthless waste of time and space. As it is at least it has some provocative value, if nothing else... At least for those with something between their ears and a bit of an open heart, who don't just have to be right all the time regardless...:rolleyes:
  30. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus would be a rubbish god

    What is it? Can you define a philosophy that encompasses all possible lines of scientific enquiry? Once you've done that, can you define another philosophy that includes non-scientific lines of enquiry?

    I keep asking dilute micro this second question, but s/he seems unwilling to answer.

Share This Page