OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[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 ]

[Makinus]

Just to try to clarify about the nature of philosphy:

My philosophy Teacher says that philosophy, originally, was the term used to nominate all the sciences (from logic, to biology to astrology, etc.), but when a science became too complex it "separated" from the philosophy and because of this, today philosophy only works with some "sciences", and other have their own methods and fields.

About logic, according to my teacher, it is one of the "chapters" or "sciences" that are part of philosophy, but, in itself, logic is not the only basis of philosopy, only one of ist fields of study and, freqüently, one of its "tools".

So, when on says that philosophy is entirely based in logic he is exagerating, while is truth that logic is one of the most popular "tools" of philosophy, and that philosophy have an entire "chapter" of studies about pure logic, it is not the "essence" of philosophy, that, in itself, is a "colective" of sciences.

I hope this helps to clarify the question, and if i'm wrong, it will not be the first time

Makinus

[Fyron]

If you want to lump things in with philosophy that are not really philosophy, go right ahead.

[Jack Simth]

Let me see if I have this straight:

Fyron is contradicting at least four others who have posted in this thread on what philosophy is. At least one of whom is leaning on rational argument, at least one of whom is checking with a professional on the subject, and at least one of whom is quoting literature on it from Stanford University. Meanwhile, Fyron leans on his own authority on the matter, and maintains that he is correct.

Does anyone - anyone at all - see anything false in the above statements?

If not, the logical thing to do would be to ask Fyron what his authority is that he can lean on it so surely. Fyron?

[ August 21, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Fyron]

You didn't know? I am the world authority on philosophy.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You didn't know? I am the world authority on philosophy.

The graemlin would indicate you are joking, and the entry for your occupation in your profile ("Student") would support that interpertation.

If you aren't joking, please, give us links to the many places where you are listed for your philosophy awards, and the many papers you have written on the subject in order to obtain that vaunted position, so that we might have evidence of your claim.

If you are joking, please try actually debating the subject, as the other four(?) people involved are; I don't recognize your statements as authoritative on the subject when they stand by themselves. Were there debate and rational arguments with them, I might. As your statements on the issue currently stand, however, you don't really have anything in them to go on, and they can be discounted.

[geoschmo]

Jack and Fyron. Go to your corners please.