| Author |
Topic:
Ontology and Epistemology Post [Locked] |
Sin_of_Onin  Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
I most certainly did answer the question, what you fail at is reading. Moral issues are no different than any other topic. Read the OP on slavery and women's rights, which are clearly both moral issues that older epistemologies got wrong. As science has clearly demonstrated, women are just as capable at making decisions as men and there is absolutely no reason to subjugate anyone because of their skin color.
Why should I care about any of those things?
I am not saying I shouldn't but prove to me I should.
You are deluded. I already know science can't prove moral questions, only inform them.
That is just the way it is professor, suck it up and deal.
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
_Enkidu_  Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
So when I show you how science can answer moral questions you just decide you don't care about those moral questions? LOL, weak.
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
Sin_of_Onin Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Prove it is good or bad that people are enslaved(using science).
The most you can do is assume a desired outcome of good or bad and then prove that no slavery achieves that outcome. You can't prove that we should achieve that outcome.
Ergo science does not and can not answer moral questions, but it can inform them.
Or why should I care?
Prove I should care about your moral imperatives.
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
Modeeb Title: A Ghost In The Machine
Posts: 1,258
Registered: 2002-4-19 10:48:36
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
Modeeb posted:
First, I need to correct myself. The metaphyical category is Transcendental Idealism and not Transcendental Realism. In your world, numbers are mind-dependent in my world numbers are mind independent. The number three doesnt cease to exist if I am no longer around. It existed before me and after me. It is a universal. Universals are abstract objects. Abstract objects exist outside of space and time. They are mind independent.
I'm a mystic of sorts. This is my fundamental approach to Reality. This is why intuition in my worldview does different work for me than in your world. Thus, I have used a concrete example how a different metaphysical position affects your epistemology.
I'd be open to discussing another way (whatever you might be thinking about) of knowing things, but I'm going to be pretty sure it will fall into one of the existing categories. People a lot smarter than us have debating them a very long time.
We both agree about this. The matter is unsettled. I'm happy with I don't know facing metaphysical paradoxes. I admit science is our paradigm case for knowledge. However, it is not the only way to know. My worldview is compatible with notions like Soul, God, Emptiness and Mysticism.
-----signature-----
"What is here is there. What is not here is nowhere." Vishvasara Tantra
"Ever tried, Ever Failed. No matter. Try Again.
Fail Again. Fail Better. Samuel Beckett
|
_Enkidu_ Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Sin_of_Onin posted:
Prove it is good or bad that people are enslaved using science.
The most you can do is assume a desired outcome of good or bad and then prove that no slavery achieves that outcome. You can't prove that we should achieve that outcome.
Ergo science does not and can not answer moral questions, but it can inform them.
Or why should I care?
Prove I should care about your moral imperatives.
All morals are assumed outcomes of good and bad, whatever made you think they were not?
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
Sin_of_Onin Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
All morals are assumed outcomes of good and bad, whatever made you think they were not?
Just answer the question, can science be used to prove right and wrong, good and bad?
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
_Enkidu_ Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
And once again, of course. Whatever measure you use to decide a good/bad/right/wrong outcome, science will give you the most valid answer out of the appeals to knowledge.
This isn't that hard tounderstand, is it?
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
Sin_of_Onin Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
And once again, of course. Whatever measure you use to decide a good/bad/right/wrong outcome, science will give you the most valid answer out of the appeals to knowledge.
This isn't that hard tounderstand, is it?
So you have once again made a claim, now provide an example of science proving a should statement or a moral question.
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
As I keep saying, of course right and wrong can be determined by science, it happens all the time.
That is patently absurd. Science cannot determine which subjective experience/emotion/belief is more wrong/rightt than another subjective experience/emotion/belief.
|
cherrim  Posts: 68
Registered: 2003-4-6 21:57:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
I don't contend that delineating "ways of knowing" is arcane. I suppose most of my earlier critique applies to statements like "your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence." Such a statement is either tautological or intentionally obscure, or both.
_Enkidu_ posted:
And once again, of course. Whatever measure you use to decide a good/bad/right/wrong outcome, science will give you the most valid answer out of the appeals to knowledge.
This isn't that hard tounderstand, is it?
I'll bite: How should we decide how to categorize our outcomes into good/bad/right/wrong, scientifically?
-----signature-----
One special advantage of the skeptical attitude of mind is that a man is never vexed to find that after all he has been in the wrong.
- William Osler
|
|
