All of science rests on assumptions, and I've noticed too that people require their opposing views to rest on less assumptions than their own views do, and that is simply not fair. For example, certain people require a greater degree of evidence for evolution than they do for miracles, or any other science. I'm aware of science having to rest on assumptions, yet we have nuclear power and computers. This is not the same as faith if there is a clear path from observation to technology as in science. Science is then validated by producing results. How is religion even comparable?
All of science rests on assumptions
Are you asserting that philosophy is useless and doesn't work whatsoever?
Sam Harris's faith is that we are biological robots, but we are responsible for our actions and an objective morality exists. Or do I kind of misrepresent his views?Lovely greetings from Germany.Liebe Grüsse aus Deutschland.Lothars Sohn - Lothar's sonhttp://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
Quote from: cgsim1480 on August 17, 2013, 01:43:58 pmAre you asserting that philosophy is useless and doesn't work whatsoever?I don't think so. We have kind of split things up into sections like philosophy and science but in reality there is only one Pursuit of Knowledge.And it's kind of sensible that if we find something that works, that it should be declared true. This sounds obvious but people didn't always believe it. They preferred treating 'Humors' in the human body rather than looking at the body-count-evidence, or doing rain dances without even evaluating whether they work. So the great step forward has been to match what works with what we believe - broadly, science.And ever since then the sub-branch of knowledge that is philosophy has become more and more useless by comparison to science, as science has just exploded.Personally I think that compared to science, philosophy is virtually useless. Not through it's own fault but simply by being eclipsed by the huge success of science. Also I think that, just as there was great resistance to empirical methods informing our knowledge in the past - like medicine - there is still great resistance to science informing philosophy today.Ultimately, though, that resistance will crumble. What works will win out.