First off, I am a skeptic of sorts, but I am not a scientific skeptic. Rather within skepticism I am a global skeptics in that I can maintain doubt about all forms of knowledge, but I have also learned the difference between in practice and in theory as it is often expressed as to the effect of - “Can we stop doing pure philosophy and turn to what we can do in practice?”
Yes and no, because at least some of those but not all of them, who want to avoid theoretical/pure philosophy are not aware that they in effect do and use theoretical/pure philosophy as a way of understanding reality. So let me show you a practical example of that.
JD(John Doe in a general usage of JD): Everything is physical.
Me: No.
So before I continue I will ask something of you, namely how do you explain not just my ability but everybody else’s ability to in practice think, use and do this? Namely how do you explain the ability to do something differently than JD, but not just JD as JD? In general how do you explain that you(or somebody) can do something and I(somebody else) can do something else?
JD: There are people, who don’t understand how reality works. They don’t live in the real world; they live in a fantasy world.
Can you see the practical absurdity in such an answer? In practice if everything is physical, then they are a part of that everything is physical and so is my answer of no. So if you want to explain everything in practice you might want to consider if your explanation amounts to that you explain something or explain it away as irrelevant.
Now there is more to it than this piece of text, but that no represents a part of reality and is in part how reality works, so if you understand science as natural science and feel that you can explain reality/everything/the universe I would like to hear how you explain this text and this no? I accept any answer including functional/practical non-answers, so feel free to fire away. :)
With regards
Tommy
Yes and no, because at least some of those but not all of them, who want to avoid theoretical/pure philosophy are not aware that they in effect do and use theoretical/pure philosophy as a way of understanding reality. So let me show you a practical example of that.
JD(John Doe in a general usage of JD): Everything is physical.
Me: No.
So before I continue I will ask something of you, namely how do you explain not just my ability but everybody else’s ability to in practice think, use and do this? Namely how do you explain the ability to do something differently than JD, but not just JD as JD? In general how do you explain that you(or somebody) can do something and I(somebody else) can do something else?
JD: There are people, who don’t understand how reality works. They don’t live in the real world; they live in a fantasy world.
Can you see the practical absurdity in such an answer? In practice if everything is physical, then they are a part of that everything is physical and so is my answer of no. So if you want to explain everything in practice you might want to consider if your explanation amounts to that you explain something or explain it away as irrelevant.
Now there is more to it than this piece of text, but that no represents a part of reality and is in part how reality works, so if you understand science as natural science and feel that you can explain reality/everything/the universe I would like to hear how you explain this text and this no? I accept any answer including functional/practical non-answers, so feel free to fire away. :)
With regards
Tommy
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/Q0rLYW
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire