OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tigbit, I am actually not way off at all. What I described is what philosophy is, and has been for centuries. I suggest you pick up some philosophy text books.

Do you realize how extensive a library one can build in the space of 10 years? Now this is a library that has no fiction in it at all. I have a mix of science, spirituality, and philosophy, some history, loads of reference books and various others that don't really seem to fit in any one catagory. I assure you, Fyron that I am very well read. It seems that you have much to learn yet, and that's okay because we always have something we need to learn.

Philosophy is far from the pure logic that Aristotle professed so long ago. Back then he felt that pure thought alone could understand the world. Anyone who has reached their first year of highschool knows that Aristotle was very incorrect about a great many of his ideas. Philosophy was that sad attempt to make sense of the world without the checks and ballances to root out the most-certainly-incorrect from the more-than-likely. (Personal opinion coming up) Now all philosphy has become is a course that one can take so that they can spew off a few quotes from dead people to make themselves feel like they know something. Few people who actually go through a phil course will continue on and actually have something to offer in the way of unique thought. Those that do go far and actually believe that they have found their calling as a philosopher write a book or few of some-to-great value and become professors for the next generation of wannabe know-it-alls.

If you really want pure logic, then science is the dicipline you are looking for, not philosophy.

[Fyron]

I was never talking about lame college students that never had an original thought, I was talking about philosophy itself, which is indeed still all logic based.

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was never talking about lame college students that never had an original thought, I was talking about philosophy itself, which is indeed still all logic based.

I will not get into a is/isn't argument, Fyron and I need not repeat myself.

[rextorres]

Weight of a soul!!!? I'm still trying to figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin!

[rextorres]

Trying to find a solution to MY question I came across this anecdote. It seems somewhat relevant.

http://www.rbs0.com/baromete.htm

[deccan]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The very root of philosophy is logical arguments... it can be used to try to prove assumptions, yes. That is how science works, incidentally. But, the philosophy itself is still all logic. Of course, this is not to say that noone ever misuses it or gets it wrong...

Sorry, Fyron but I disagree. jimbob on the other hand has it exactly right.

Originally posted by jimbob:

If that doesn't make sense, let me say just this: everyone does, and by necessity must, make some basic assumptions before they can make an arguement. As a result, even the most "unbiased" position is in truth, based on a world view or "leap of faith" of some sort. As a result philosophy cannot be entirely based upon logic, as if it has more a corner on truth than any other system of thought.

You might be interested in reading a technical description of the problem in the article Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification

In particular note this excerpt:

Suppose I claim to be justified in believing that Fred will die shortly and offer as my evidence that Fred has an untreatable and serious form of cancer. Concerned, you ask me how I discovered that Fred has the cancer and I respond that it is just a hunch on my part. As soon as you discover that I have no reason at all to suppose that Fred has the cancer, you will immediately conclude that my whimsical belief about Fred's condition gives me no justification for believing that Fred will soon die. Generalizing, one might suggest the following principle:

To be justified in believing P on the basis of E one must be justified in believing E.

Now consider another example. Suppose I claim to be justified in believing that Fred will die shortly and offer as my justification that a certain line across his palm (his infamous "lifeline") is short. Rightly skeptical, you wonder this time what reason I have for believing that palm lines have anything whatsoever to do with length of life. As soon as you become satisfied that I have no justification for supposing that there is any kind of probabilistic connection between the character of this line and Fred's life you will again reject my claim to have a justified belief about Fred's impending demise. That suggests that we might expand our Principle of Inferential Justification (PIJ) to include a second clause:

Principle of Inferential Justification:
To be justified in believing P on the basis of E one must not only be (1) justified in believing E, but also (2) justified in believing that E makes probable P.

With PIJ one can present a relatively straightforward epistemic regress argument for foundationalism. If all justification were inferential then for someone S to be justified in believing some proposition P, S must be in a position to legitimately infer it from some other proposition E1. But E1 could justify S in believing P only if S were justified in believing E1, and if all justification were inferential the only way for S to do that would be to infer it from some other proposition justifiably believed, E2, a proposition which in turn would have to be inferred from some other proposition E3 which is justifiably believed, and so on, ad infinitum. But finite beings cannot complete an infinitely long chain of reasoning and so if all justification were inferential no-one would be justified in believing anything at all to any extent whatsoever. This most radical of all skepticisms is absurd (it entails that one couldn't even be justified in believing it) and so there must be a kind of justification which is not inferential, i.e. there must be noninferentially justified beliefs which terminate regresses of justification.

And yes, this applies to my beliefs and worldviews as well.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions. Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.

Actually no, if we all start at the same beginning, then if our logical reasoning, if they're correct, should always lead to the same conclusions.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions.

Let's try a mathmatics analagy for a moment: There are many different algorythims that can successfully multiply two numbers together. However, if two algorythms designed for the same number system derive different results, one of them (at least) is incorrect. Further, it is possible to prove which one is false by going back to the base definitions involved. This is possible because math is truly based on logic; there are assumptions involved, but more often than not they are either definitions to cut down on the problem being worked on or criteria under which the derived fact holds true. That does not work with philosophy, as many of their base assumptions are by nature unproveable, arbitrary, and all-encompasing (such as Kant deciding that reason should be the basis for all decisions). As they are unproveable and arbitrary, we arrive with differing schools of thought in philosophy centering around those base assumptions. Were such assumptions not present, you would end up with only a single school of thought, as you could truly prove that a competing school of thought was objectively wrong. There would still be differing opinions on some of the newly brought up/newly discovered fine points until such time as an objective (dis)proof comes around (as it is with mathmatics), but on things of any importance at all, everyone would be in agreement (again, like math: Using the standard definitions of +, =, 2, and 4 in the standard base 10 number system, 2 + 2 = 4; no exceptions). That isn't the case with philosophy. Any philisophical school of thought is ultimately based on one or more basic assumptions that cannot, by their very nature, be proven. Such assumptions are either arbitrary, "feel-good" statements, or those that (while they cannot be proven) few would disagree with (often defended by a question). Something requiring an unproveable assumption is outside the realm of logic alone. Note that I am including the "alone" in that statement. Don't get me wrong - assumptions aren't necessarily a bad thing. You can go far with a good assumption set. However, unless it can be objectively tested, an assumption lies outside the realm of pure logic.

That, and there are schools of philosophy that don't recognize logic as the keystone of ethics, choosing instead to go with emotions.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.

Arguments? No. However, some of the schools sometimes claim to be.

Edit: I hate it when my signiture is correct.

[ August 21, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]