Why would you publish a paper stating that you agree with everything Professor X said?! — jacksonsprat22
So what I'd argue is, Evidentialism is not how science actually functions. — h060tu
OK, but it is more physical-evidence-based than philosophy, no? — bert1
scientific questions get actually decided fairly regularly in the light of evidence. — bert1
For example, recently a planet "disappeared" from the Universe. Did the planet really disappear? No. It never actually existed. The scientific theory was just wrong. — h060tu
The National Interest (TNI) is an American bimonthly conservative international affairs magazine published by the Center for the National Interest, which is a Washington, D.C.-based public policy think tank established by former U.S. President Richard Nixon on January 20, 1994, as the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom.[1] Nixon's handpicked executive and current president, Dimitri Simes, was named in the Mueller Report as an agent of the Russian government and has intervened in American politics on direct orders of the highest levels of the Russian government.[2] In light of this scandal, the reputation and fidelity of the publication has suffered as a magazine of record.[3] Simes continues to officially and openly serve as publisher of The National Interest.[4] — Wikipedia
Regardless of their fidelity on this particular mostly-apolitical topic, your appeal to them damages your reputation in my eyes, just FYI. — Pfhorrest
What science are you talking about? Scientific questions are never settled, and can never be settled by definition. — h060tu
I'm interested in what you think distinguishes philosophy from science. If you don't think it is reliance on physical evidence, what is it? Are you more comfortable with the concept of observation perhaps? — bert1
Maybe not absolutely 100%, no, but some questions are pretty settled aren't they? They are settled enough to base life and death decisions on, for example, that converting kinetic energy to heat in a brake will reliably slow a car. — bert1
Sure, but there's still a fairly clear distinction between philosophy and science, even if it is blurry in places and shifts its ground. — bert1
Generally, and imperfectly, philosophical questions are not resolvable by making a physical observation. If they are, they tend to cease to be philosophical questions, and become scientific. That's roughly right isn't it? — bert1
Although bizzarely flat Earthism seems to be making a comeback. So maybe I'm totally wrong. — bert1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.