skakos » October 28th, 2014, 6:58 pm wrote:...Put "Many causes" along with the "A cause" and "No cause" option.
Which one sounds more scientific?
Really? that's your criterion? the one that sounds more scientific?
![]() |
![]() |
skakos » October 28th, 2014, 6:58 pm wrote:...Put "Many causes" along with the "A cause" and "No cause" option.
Which one sounds more scientific?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
neuro » October 20th, 2014, 11:45 am wrote:skakos » October 16th, 2014, 11:08 pm wrote:Theories are based on axioms.
This does not seem to address the question of "the Limits of Science", but rather the limits of any theory, of logic itself, of our reasoning itself.I am talking about science in general.
For example how can science of... 240,000 deal with things that cannot be measured?
This is an inherent limitation.
So the whole story reduces to this?
"Science deals with what can be observed and measured"?
"what cannot be observed or measured cannot be accessed by science"?
Sad to think that we needed 7 pages of posts to realize this...
You should consider as a sign of great respect the fact that the forum members have tried to discuss the question assuming you were not merely claiming such a triviality.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dlorde wrote:skakos » October 28th, 2014, 6:58 pm wrote:...Put "Many causes" along with the "A cause" and "No cause" option.
Which one sounds more scientific?
Really? that's your criterion? the one that sounds more scientific?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos » Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:58 pm wrote:mtbturtle » October 17th, 2014, 12:43 am wrote:Why is it always "A Cause"? couldn't it be the causes? are those all our options?
OK.
Put "Many causes" along with the "A cause" and "No cause" option.
Which one sounds more scientific?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos= wrote:1. Science deals only with things which can be measured, but most important things are not measurable.
2. Science relies on the belief that you can learn about something by analyzing it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paralith » October 28th, 2014, 8:33 pm wrote:dlorde wrote:skakos » October 28th, 2014, 6:58 pm wrote:...Put "Many causes" along with the "A cause" and "No cause" option.
Which one sounds more scientific?
Really? that's your criterion? the one that sounds more scientific?
I don't know what sounds more scientific to you skakos, but none of them are scientific since not one of them says anything about evidence.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos » November 3rd, 2014, 12:07 am wrote:We see many phenomena.
We observe them.
We see them all having a cause.
So it would be logical to assume that the creation of the universe also has one.
Not the only option. But an option which seems logical nontheless.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dlorde » November 3rd, 2014, 1:06 pm wrote:skakos » November 3rd, 2014, 12:07 am wrote:We see many phenomena.
We observe them.
We see them all having a cause.
So it would be logical to assume that the creation of the universe also has one.
Not the only option. But an option which seems logical nontheless.
Two points - firstly we don't see that all the phenomena we observe have a cause. This has resulted in a lot of superstitious and magical thinking where a cause is invented to explain apparently causeless phenomena. We now reasonably assume that phenomena similar in kind to those for which we have observed a cause, also have a cause.
Secondly, what is intuitive, what seems logical, and what is logical are very often different, yet are often confused. There is a name for things that seem logical but are incorrect: fallacies.
Here, you have managed to combine errors - an invalid premise (that we observe a cause for everything we observe), and a category error leading to an invalid inference (the universe is not like other phenomena we observe, it is where all observable phenomena occur, so it isn't logical to assume it is like other phenomena). It may be reasonable to assume that phenomena similar in kind to those for which we have observed a cause, also have a cause, but the universe isn't such a phenomenon.
To simplify - that everything in the universe seems to have a cause, doesn't imply the universe itself has a cause - that's a fallacy of composition.
This is not to say the universe doesn't have a cause; just that the argument you describe is fallacious.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos wrote:I just say which option seems logical based on the EVIDENCE and the OBSERVATIONS we have made so far. Listing fallacies and categorical mistakes does not again offer any specific clues to the discussion regarding the "mistake" here either.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » November 10th, 2014, 12:31 am wrote:Calling a hypothesized beginning to the universe a "creation" sort of assumes that which has yet to be demonstrated, no?
Also, scientists have observed events which have no apparent cause (quantum mechanics?), so leaning on the evidence won't help you there.
Skoal.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » November 10th, 2014, 1:13 am wrote:skakos wrote:I just say which option seems logical based on the EVIDENCE and the OBSERVATIONS we have made so far. Listing fallacies and categorical mistakes does not again offer any specific clues to the discussion regarding the "mistake" here either.
The bottom line here for me is that there are indeed two logical mistakes. First, you have not demonstrated in any way that if a cause is necessary, it would be the kind of cause that is best categorized as some kind of god or deity. I see no reason why the cause couldn't be something else that is not sentient or thinking, etc. By simply assuming it is a god or deity you may not have the kind of open mind that would lead to the correct answer. Second, even if you were ultimately correct that it is some kind of god, you haven't moved any further in figuring out which one. I suppose in Greece it might make sense to assume it is one of the Judeo-Christian variations but around where I live they assume it is some variation of Gitchi Manitou compatible with the Midiwin religion (although on that one I increasingly lean towards the older more traditionalist and animist versions - I think an anthropomorphic deity is increasingly depressing).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
neuro » November 10th, 2014, 4:09 pm wrote:... and, by the way, when asked "so, if everything must have a cause, what is the cause of such god?", you would probably answer "there's no need for such a cause, because god is categorically different from the universe so he(she) needn't comply with the rules of the universe"; but this is exactly what has been suggested above: "there's no need for a cause for the universe, because the universe as a whole is categorically different from the set of processes that occur in it, so it needn't comply with the rules of such phenomena".
Why would your argument hold and the latter wouldn't?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos wrote:If we agree that a Cause COULD exist, then the path is open in order to start analyzing the characteristics of this cause. Are we at this point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » November 16th, 2014, 10:43 pm wrote:skakos wrote:If we agree that a Cause COULD exist, then the path is open in order to start analyzing the characteristics of this cause. Are we at this point?
I would say we have been for quite some time. For example it has been proposed that comets might have been the cause of there being a lot of water on this planet. To begin to investigate this possibility/hypothesis, a probe was sent to land on a comet and conduct scientific data gathering. From what I hear, the results of this have been terrific. And, of course, this is only one very recent example. Many many others could be cited. Thus are the limits of science expanded. But, of course, even though the limits of science are and will continue to expand, there will always be limits. The point is to keep on expanding these limits.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos wrote:But water is one thing, the beginning of existence of the cosmos is another.
Do you agree that something caused the universe to Be?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » January 2nd, 2015, 10:58 pm wrote:...If something has to have come first, I would bet that it most likely was something that we know exists, not something that we have no evidence of.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dlorde wrote:You might as well say it is magic.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:43 pm wrote:skakos wrote:If we agree that a Cause COULD exist, then the path is open in order to start analyzing the characteristics of this cause. Are we at this point?
I would say we have been for quite some time. For example it has been proposed that comets might have been the cause of there being a lot of water on this planet. To begin to investigate this possibility/hypothesis, a probe was sent to land on a comet and conduct scientific data gathering. From what I hear, the results of this have been terrific. And, of course, this is only one very recent example. Many many others could be cited. Thus are the limits of science expanded. But, of course, even though the limits of science are and will continue to expand, there will always be limits. The point is to keep on expanding these limits.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles » January 5th, 2015, 11:16 am wrote:Forest, this notion of water on planet Earth has intrigued me for some time. Do you know what the evidence is for suspecting that Earth's water is not endogenous and that it has to have come from somewhere else. It just seems to me that if it is endogenous in comets, that it could be just as endogenous on our planet.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
skakos wrote:If we agree that a Cause COULD exist, then the path is open in order to start analyzing the characteristics of this cause. Are we at this point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
doogles wrote:Forest, this notion of water on planet Earth has intrigued me for some time. Do you know what the evidence is for suspecting that Earth's water is not endogenous and that it has to have come from somewhere else. It just seems to me that if it is endogenous in comets, that it could be just as endogenous on our planet.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I am not sure how you are suggesting we could determine the first appearance of water from chemical reactions. Could you expand on this please.Forest_Dump » Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:05 am wrote: First, it is addressable from at least two angles - looking at comets and looking at rocks of the appropriate age to see if and when water appears (based on chemical reactions).
There is no obvious evidence to suggest higher relative concentrations of organics prior to the major influx of water.Forest_Dump » Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:05 am wrote: Second, it opens a lot of new interesting questions such as whether the appearance of the building blocks of life could have been correlated such as due to low water levels and the concentration, etc., and whatever other chemical processes might have been going on.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests