I have a new idea/guideline/razor for philosophy

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
So my new guideline goes like this:

To support/attack a claim you must first prove/disprove it scientifically. If you can't prove or disprove an idea scientifically, you must then try to prove/disprove the idea/claim rationally/logically/philosophically.

Any thoughts? Be sure to be kind when giving criticisms.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Conservallectual
Perhaps the precursor should be: (If I understand the proposition correctly)

The primary claim must first be scientifically proven.

That's assuming:

A. is claiming and B. is attacking and you are resting the burden of proof upon B's shoulders.


Though from your statement it's not easy to make out, who is making  what/which claim, and who should be substantiating what/which claim.


Or is this just a roundabout way of saying :

If T claims G then A must disprove G.



#3
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Conservallectual
To support/attack a claim you must first prove/disprove it scientifically.
How do you support the claim that scientific proofs are the standard by which we judge truth? If the only way is to use science, then you must use science to prove this claim, which is circular. 
Topic's author
#4
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
by scientific I mean using the methods of the scientific method.
#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Conservallectual
To support/attack a claim you must first prove/disprove it scientifically. If you can't prove or disprove an idea scientifically, you must then try to prove/disprove the idea/claim rationally/logically/philosophically.
The distinctions are abstract and have no bearing on any specific subject or assertion.

Rationally is a synonym for logically in this context. Philosophically does not translate to something specific. Science is simply rational epistemology applied to hypothetical explanation of phenomenon, especially with the aid of math or experimentation.

It all boils down to a good argument... and by good I mean sound/strong.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Conservallectual
Asi que puede aclarar su declaracion.
#7
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Conservallectual
The distinctions are abstract and have no bearing on any specific subject or assertion.

Rationally is a synonym for logically in this context. Philosophically does not translate to something specific. Science is simply rational epistemology applied to hypothetical explanation of phenomenon, especially with the aid of math or experimentation.

It all boils down to a good argument... and by good I mean sound/strong.
I second that apart from what you said about science. I would reword it to fit verifiable instead of hypothetical. 
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
by scientific I mean using the methods of the scientific method.
which works great for physics (QUANTA)

but it fails miserably when attempting to determine private opinions (QUALIA)
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
So my new guideline goes like this:

To support/attack a claim you must first prove/disprove it scientifically. If you can't prove or disprove an idea scientifically, you must then try to prove/disprove the idea/claim rationally/logically/philosophically.

Any thoughts? Be sure to be kind when giving criticisms.
a noble effort
Topic's author
#10
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
The scientific part is not meant for private opinions, but the philosophical part is.
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
The scientific part is not meant for private opinions, but the philosophical part is.
in pure logical terms

there are only two options

PROVABLY TRUE

and

PROVABLY FALSE

less than 1% of all human disagreement falls into EITHER of these (mutually exclusive) categories
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I think it depends on what is being discussed.
#13
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
why arbitrarily give primacy to empirical epistemology? 
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
less than 1% of all human disagreement falls into EITHER of these (mutually exclusive) categories
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@sui_generis
why arbitrarily give primacy to imaginary epistemology? 
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
@sui_generis
Epistemology is a self-contradicting unnecessity.

And empiricism to a greater or lesser extent, relies upon imagination.

And arbitrarily and primacy are equally as woolly.


Well that's my arbitrarily prime opinion of existentialism.

Though anyone is free to disagree...Just reshuffle the words and deal yourself a new hand.
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Epistemology is a self-contradicting unnecessity.
please explain
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
In so much as one either thinks about thinking, or one doesn't think.
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as one either thinks about thinking, or one doesn't think.
shouldn't a person be able to identify HOW they know what they claim to know ?
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
For sure...We understand the basics of HOW knowledge/data is acquired, stored and remembered....But that's not a words and grammar issue per se.





Topic's author
#21
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
my method is supposed to be anti-empiricism/scientism

An example of my razor in work: how do we prove god exists?

first we will examine it with the scientific method - nope, this is a metaphysical claim

secondly we examine logic - kalam cosmological argument, yep we proved it.
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
We understand the basics of HOW knowledge/data is acquired, stored and remembered
speak for yourself
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
According to the kalam, there can be only one itself-uncaused-and-eternal thing that causes all other things, and that first cause is God.

this seems to reduce the idea of god into some impersonal force of nature

how do you propose we connect the kalam cosmological argument and any specific god and or gods ?
#24
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,048
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
We understand the basics of HOW knowledge/data is acquired, stored and remembered....But that's not a words and grammar issue per se
The Action Potential is electrical-chemical charges in the nervous system.


--Negative charge on inside of neuron-- Male charge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/\  /\  /\  /\ Protein Gates { female portals } Inbetween  inside above and outside below /\  /\  /\  /\

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+Positive charge on outside of neuron+ Male charge


#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
We understand the basics of HOW knowledge/data is acquired, stored and remembered
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I did say the basics.

And was simply trying to point out the distinction between words and comprehension.
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Conservallectual
my method is supposed to be anti-empiricism/scientism

An example of my razor in work: how do we prove god exists?

first we will examine it with the scientific method - nope, this is a metaphysical claim

secondly we examine logic - kalam cosmological argument, yep we proved it.
That's not how logic and reason works.

To attack/support a claim you need to address the claim on its own plain. "The earth is round" is a factual claim deduced from observations within reality. So to attack/disprove it you need to use observations within reality.

"Murder is wrong" is a philosophical claim, so to address it you need to establish your underlying philosophy and why it should be accepted.

"God exists" is a claim about empirical reality, so you need to use empirical reality to prove it. It cannot be proven solely with abstract logic.
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I did say the basics.
what do you mean by "basics" ?
Topic's author
#29
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The example I gave was just to prove my idea in action, not trying to prove wether or not God exists . I am not going to answer this point because it is not important to my point. I 
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
The example I gave was just to prove my idea in action,
to prove that your idea works, perhaps you should give an example that is actually provably-true