4 ms·
Just focus on the first two sentences. Take the notion of causality. It underlies all of empirical science, yet it is not something that can be proved empirical
by ambler0 12y ago
Just focus on the first two sentences. Take the notion of causality. It underlies all of empirical science, yet it is not something that can be proved empirically. It is a given, a built in part of how we perceive things. You can read more about this if you check out the work of David Hume or Immanuel Kant.
There is nothing naive about recognizing that human knowledge is limited by our knowing apparatus. What is truly naive is to mistake the models of science with "reality itself" (a nebulous term)
- snowwrestler 12y agoIMO philosophers get into trouble because they want to nail down what is "real" or "true". They try to work by pure logic, but alway get tied up by the limitations of spoken or written language. "Infinite" for example is a logically imprecise term; there are different flavors of mathematical infinity. Perhaps a more valid way to phrase the same sentiment would be to say that science, because of its assumptions and methodologies, can only address phenomena that are spatial, temporal, and causal. There might be real things that have none of those attributes; science and philosophers would have difficulty studying them, but that difficulty does not rule out the possibility of their existence. edit: spoken or written
- ambler0 12y agoSure, a lot of philosophers are so audacious, but not all. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism