Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
The problem is, many of you guys don't seem to even know what the scientific method is. You're always looking for 'proof', but that's not the way science works! You can't prove that we'll all die some day, but you can predict it with very reasonable accuracy. Why? Because there is mounds of evidence, based on countless overservations that all people die at some point. Your example fails miserably.
(Sorry to undo all that digging)
I'm so glad how well you know many of us guys.
You're really serious, aren't you? I almost thought you were leveling with us. Do you think about what you say, or do you think with your heart? Have you heard of such a thing as inductive reasoning? In case you haven't, it's a wonderful tool we use in many sorts of situations, from the mundane, day-to-day life activities all the way up to the highest levels of research.
Tell me, what happens when you, personally, make an observation in the world for the first time? The second time when it follows the same pattern? The nth time when it follows the same pattern? Do you mentally record (actively store in memory) your observations? Do you measure any variables and its effects (if any) on your observations? Remember, you're just an average guy going about your business unable to form a testable hypothesis, because you won't be able to test it in the natural environment anyway. But you don't know that, remember. You're not in a lab wearing a white coat looking through a one-sided mirror with assistants and colleagues frantically taking notes and punching data into a computer.
What happens when Joe Average observes several dozen situations and comes to some conclusion? We call it a layman's opinion. What happens when a scientist comes to the same conclusion? We call it scientific research. Results-oriented lol..(Yes, obviously the latter approach and process is the use of the scientific method, but it's not the holy grail of epistemology. In fact I think it's probably erroneous to think of epistemology having a holy grail.) What happens when thousands of Joe Averages come to same layman conclusion, which accidentally happens to be correct (or as statistically close to correct as possible)? Are you seriously going to dismiss its validity because it doesn't fit into some standardized research model that we made up? That would be pretty damn arrogant, and foolish.
People live and die. That's a fact of life, not science. Some, but not all, facts of life are a science, but science is not a fact of life. Science is, however, a tool to find and study facts of life.
In case you're wondering, no, that's not some sneaky logical ploy or linguistic gymnastics.
I will be fair, though. I did use an absolute statement in the example at which I supposedly failed miserably. What I should have done was added the qualifier, "with nearly 100% certainty," after the words, "I know." You can't know anything without using science, no? Isn't this the core of what you were getting at?
Please, throw the horse in the grave now. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subfallen
"Living is the purpose of life." If that's all you had in mind, then you don't mean anything interesting by 'purpose of life.'
I thought we were talking about the "Why?" that bows heartbroken before the never-ending suffering of all sentient beings. That's not "many cans of worms", it's one eternal burden.
It was not meant to be interesting, profound or some such. It was meant to be elementary and lucid.
To borrow a phrase, you seem to be confusing, "what is the meaning of life," with, "why are we here?" Let's have some fun with the second one: Who the hell cares? A few thousand humans pondering the reason for their entire species' place in the universe is negligible on both the macro and microcosm, regardless of whether or not they are the leaders and cream of the human crop. On the other hand, every single human being capable of this inquisitive thought pondering the question makes it significant. "Why are we here" is not a question necessitating an answer, unless that answer is detrimental to our well being and progress as a whole. Answering this question will not solve some of the world's major problems like disease, poverty and corruption. What it
might do is provide solace and stem the tide of incessant questioning by satisfying idle curiosity on the individual level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subfallen
You seem to be confusing 'experience' with 'knowledge.' Enlightened beings do, perhaps, die with a smile; but not because they know an "answer" to an "all important question." They stopped asking a long time ago, for one thing...
OK, try this frivolous exercise: Firstly, how do you acquire your knowledge? Before you attempt actual the task, what's your definition(s) of experience.