4 ms·

I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just

I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just one thing, I want to elaborate on what I meant here: > > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. > That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". I don't see why you say that "Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago." relating to "100% proofs" would be considered a logical fallacy? What I was aiming at is the fundamental principle of "evidence" in the context of sciences, and the philosophical underpinnings of "empiricism". Claimed "evidence" for the metaphysical idea of God, particularly the Christian God, if I understand correctly, was the origin of this discussion. And unless someone can up with a falsifiable definition of God, it just is muddying the waters and derailing discussion IMO to use scientific terms in relation to non-falsifiable ideas. It is an entirely different matter to me to honestly ponder the human condition, ethics, the foundations of civilisation, and the values of religious belief. It is also interesting to consider "what can I know" and to realise that a "closed" scientific world view is in fact not in accordance with scientific principles. Still, I don't see how it would make sense to equate religious beliefs with mathematical axioms.

zigzag312 3y ago
Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but we have branched into many tangled arguments and discussing multiple things at once gets hard. If you allow me to take a step back to your OP I was first responding to, in order to try to clarify the basis of my arguments. There you spoke of theological "proofs" and made sweeping statement how "all turned out to be logical fallacies" / "debunked". I asked questions about general foundations of reasoning. The aim was to discuss what is a "proof" in philosophy? To make it easier to see how hard this fundamental question really is, I first moved to a more well defined domain like mathematics. Our discussion then moved into a different direction, but the original point I was trying to get to was how shaky are foundations of definitions of things like "proof" and "logical fallacy" in philosophy. With enough freedom in interpretation, any philosophical proof could probably be interpreted in a way that it could be treated as a logical fallacy. But yeah, while it's fun, this kind of discussions can get really long. And HN is not really an appropriate place for this. There are some things that I think are simple misunderstandings, but I'm not sure how I can clarify/communicate them succinctly enough to fit them here without turning this into a way too long post. Anyway, it's been a pleasure chatting with you.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  I too have enjoyed the chat with you, that's why I am following up still that long after the original comment we both responded to was posted :) What I meant was - the commonly accepted scienfic method regarding the physical world says that we technically always work with hypothesises, that must allow themselves to be proved wrong. We can never be "100% sure" from a strict philosphical standpoint. This is the basis of modern science, we instead discuss theories that allow for themselves to be proven wrong, which conversely means that they allow to predict physical measurements. - Then there's maths, which indeed is closely tied to the basic logic also underpinning the scientific method. Maths has axioms. These need no proof. Axioms are classified by their simplicity, usefulness and shall not contradict each other. A particular religious faith is not usually considered similar to the usually used mathematical axioms, at least that's my perception. (edit: and there is of course the whole fun world of incompleteness and decidability, but I consider this a sub-topic of maths, philosophy and CS)

zigzag312 3y ago

Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but we have branched into many tangled arguments and discussing multiple things at once gets hard. If you allow me to take a step back to your OP I was first responding to, in order to try to clarify the basis of my arguments. There you spoke of theological "proofs" and made sweeping statement how "all turned out to be logical fallacies" / "debunked". I asked questions about general foundations of reasoning. The aim was to discuss what is a "proof" in philosophy? To make it easier to see how hard this fundamental question really is, I first moved to a more well defined domain like mathematics. Our discussion then moved into a different direction, but the original point I was trying to get to was how shaky are foundations of definitions of things like "proof" and "logical fallacy" in philosophy. With enough freedom in interpretation, any philosophical proof could probably be interpreted in a way that it could be treated as a logical fallacy. But yeah, while it's fun, this kind of discussions can get really long. And HN is not really an appropriate place for this. There are some things that I think are simple misunderstandings, but I'm not sure how I can clarify/communicate them succinctly enough to fit them here without turning this into a way too long post. Anyway, it's been a pleasure chatting with you.

moritzwarhier 3y ago
I too have enjoyed the chat with you, that's why I am following up still that long after the original comment we both responded to was posted :) What I meant was - the commonly accepted scienfic method regarding the physical world says that we technically always work with hypothesises, that must allow themselves to be proved wrong. We can never be "100% sure" from a strict philosphical standpoint. This is the basis of modern science, we instead discuss theories that allow for themselves to be proven wrong, which conversely means that they allow to predict physical measurements. - Then there's maths, which indeed is closely tied to the basic logic also underpinning the scientific method. Maths has axioms. These need no proof. Axioms are classified by their simplicity, usefulness and shall not contradict each other. A particular religious faith is not usually considered similar to the usually used mathematical axioms, at least that's my perception. (edit: and there is of course the whole fun world of incompleteness and decidability, but I consider this a sub-topic of maths, philosophy and CS)