Darwinsbulldog wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:The definition of proof is that which is beyond all doubt and not just reasonable doubt

And all equations by default are examples of this [ one plus one equals two for example ]

NO. In biology, 1+1 =3 [eucaryotes] 1 =2 =4 =8 =16=32 ......in procaryotes!

"All bachelors are unmarried" is an absolute and self-evident truth however.

It seeks to build self-consistent model

Macdoc wrote:

It seeks to build self-consistent model

and that is the heart of the problem and why it often gets laughed at and disregarded. Unless you can compare a model against a reality to correct the model it is of no use other than rote exercise.
That's why Jamest thinks he can "reason his way" to reality....he admires the "consistency of the argument" as if it's some virtue not realizing the outcome is total tripe.

I think you built yourself an escape hatch by saying....."until such time as empirical tests".

igorfrankensteen wrote: I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, but I think you've been careless with the statement that Philosophy only ASKS questions, and answers none. That is a very narrow definition of philosophy, and is one that I can't find listed in any definitions source I have on hand.

It is always a problem that a lot of humans ARE sloppy in how they use important words such as Philosophy, and that is why we have a number of posts here already, declaring that Philosophy is dead or useless, or some sort of pompously phrased excuse for what some here like to call wibble.

I, on the other hand, have grown up under the definition that Philosophy is the overarching systematic framework that we choose to use to organize our perception of, and interaction with, all of existence. This is WHY Science is accurately defined as a subset of Philosophy, and why a statement such as "philosophy is useless" is ludicrous. One must HAVE a philosophy up and running to MAKE such an idiotic statement.

It is at the heart of most participants in this forum, that they have selected the scientific method to be their primary tool for managing all information which comes to them. This is not a scientific act on their part, it is a philosophical one, because scientific method is not thrust upon us by existence. If it were, our forebears would not have had to fight to make it the prominent approach used today. The existence of that long and ongoing struggle alone, is proof that an overarching PHILOSOPHY is at play here.

kennyc wrote:It's been completely subsumed into other areas.

surreptitious57 wrote:I should have said that mathematics is the only discipline that always provide definitive answers

Because scientific evidence is not always absolute whereas mathematical proof is

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Philosophy is really a vast subject area, and is at its best when it asks questions about things that cannot [at least for the present] rely on empirical evidence to form a tentative conclusion. Of necessity, and indeed inclination, its deal with evidence-free models-models where there is no empirical falsifiability. It seeks to build self-consistent models. The lack of empirical verification may only be a temporary condition. A progress in methodology or technology may allow what was previously a question that could only be framed logically become one where empirical tests become available.
Philosophy can thus prepare a coherent narrative until such time an empirical test becomes viable. For example, whole of genome studies are now possible [cheaper methods and technology] , allowing scientific questions to be asked and answered about how the genomes of populations [or of at least statistically-valid sample means] behave over time.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Because scientific evidence is not always absolute whereas mathematical proof is

evidence is always absolute. The question isn't the absoluteness of the evidence, but whether or not future evidence will arise that contradicts it. In other words, we can't make categorical statements concerning whether our models are correct regardless of the evidence

surreptitious57 wrote:One could argue that if evidence can be contradicted then it cannot by definition be absolute but I see your point.

However I would question your assertion that evidence is always absolute. What if it is ambiguous or incomplete ? [ I know I have asked this before but I cannot remember the answer ]

hackenslash wrote:

kennyc wrote:It's been completely subsumed into other areas.

What other areas has it been subsumed into?

You make easily the most cretinous comments on this topic of anyone I've ever come across, and I've yet to see you defend any of them.

I do hope your response here isn't going to be the puerile cockery you delivered last time we interacted, when I challenged you on a factually incorrect statement, and your response before running away was 'drop the bullshit'.

hackenslash wrote:Ah, so just the puerile cockery then. I'll leave you to your ignorance.

hackenslash wrote:
Any new hypothesis that doesn't explain a given datum simply doesn't get off the ground, long as said datum is relevant to the area of enquiry under review. That's how falsification works. If a given datum is not consonant with your hypothesis, your hypothesis is not correct. Remember Feynman

surreptitious57 wrote:Untestable hypotheses are of course beyond the remit of science.

But that does not mean that they are false just that they cannot be subject to empirical rigour.

Also advances in both technology and knowledge can render ones that are untestable now to be testable in the future. Just as ones that are testable now were at some point untestable in the past

hackenslash wrote:Ah, so just the puerile cockery then. I'll leave you to your ignorance.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Ah, so just the puerile cockery then. I'll leave you to your ignorance.

He's starting to remind me of grandpa just before we sent him to the 'home'.

kennyc wrote:And you to yours. You might want to take a looks a Oldskeptics sig sometime as well.

This is true enough, but some statements are untestable even in principle, not merely in practice. We label such statements 'metaphysics'.

hackenslash wrote:To some degree, yes. It certainly helps elucidate science, but it's a double-edged sword, in that science also helps to elucidate philosophy. Philosophy, properly practised, begins with consistency. There are those hereabouts who think that's the end of the story, which is why you get such bollocks as firmly-held ontological conclusions. What they miss is what consistency is about. They think that logical consistency is sufficient to draw conclusions, but overlook the fact that logical tests aren't the only ones.

Many millions of words have been written on these topics by the denizens of this place, both here and on the forum from which this forum sprang, but it's fairly simple to distil it into a few phrases:

That which is consistent with every possible observation is unfalsifiable, and thus untestable.
That which is untestable is epistemologically without utility.
That which is without utility should be discarded.

Oh, and because kennyc posted while I was typing, pay no attention to him. He's the man trying to show you the man behind the curtain. There is no man behind the curtain, only more curtain, and he's talking shit. He thinks that philosophy has no value at all, which tells you all you need to know.

hackenslash wrote:

kennyc wrote:And you to yours. You might want to take a looks a Oldskeptics sig sometime as well.

Why, because it's got a beautiful argumentum ad verecundiam in it?