Pattern-chaser

You seem to be contradicting yourself. :chin:

Well I did maths, physics and chemistry at A level, I have a degree in Electronics, and a 40-year career in applied science (hardware and software des...

But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don'...

I don't think it does, certainly not in the sense that science does so. Kind of you to say so. :smile: And yet you compared the two to "apples and app...

So what do you think metaphysics is, if it is so similar to science, as you imply? Please compare/contrast science and metaphysics to show the similar...

Yes, metaphysics is difficult. If we look at wikipedia, and the Stanford dictionary of Philosophy, and so forth, we find many different descriptions o...

If they want to believe it, they already do. So there's no convincing necessary. To persuade someone to change their mind, from something they already...

Hmmm. :chin: here.] To say that the purpose of science is "Progress or Truth" is to assign aspirational aims to science, aims that are not an intrinsi...

highlighting.] So how we treat other animals, for example, is not concerned with morality? :chin:

I'm not aware of "countless" examples. I think what you're describing is social disapproval, and the response of the community to attitudes that are n...

That should be pretty soon, then. :worry:

That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say.

That's always the hard part. :up:

And what is this task, for which science is so much more suitable? :chin:

Parsing error. No meaning detected. :confused:

For as long as the casualties are so low, we don't even have the hope that eventually these people will exterminate each other. So how will they be st...

Nit-pick: metaphysics asks "why" before the prerequisites for science even exist. :smile: :up:

:lol: Yes! :up:

I left my last forum, now defunct, for exactly this reason. I was told that "non-scientific" topics were unsuitable for discussion. Such topics were t...

:chin: Er, what?

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the whole thing reduces down to our uncontrollable, still-increasing, consumption. :scream:

In this case, divide-and-conquer is a recipe for disaster. All human damage to our environment is connected, and mainly down to the burning of fossil ...

Those who have investigated the matter, as thoroughly as human scientists are able, are convinced that global warming is real, is happening, and is th...

Then I think you should consider the possibility that Plato was one of those poor unfortunates that think beauty is an objective attribute that inhere...

I think you should consider the possibility that Plato was mistaken, and would've done better if he'd talked to you first? :up:

I started off thinking it was, but it isn't. Nevertheless the old saying - you can't prove a negative - still stands. It's just that other things also...

Well, this would seem to apply (only) to negatives with unconstrained contexts. Specifically, it applies to statements for which empirical verificatio...

Interesting. I remember acknowledging that proof is often difficult to achieve in practice. But the problem, I think, is not positives or negatives bu...

There is something specific about negatives: it is impractical (as in 'impossible in practice') to prove them. That some positives also show this prop...

Yes, semantic misunderstandings are common, and I think the reasons for this are obvious. ( :chin: ) But there is also the paralysing effect of people...

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Plausible too.... :chin: :up:

I think the natural 'laws' simply describe the universe. The universe operates without the need for outside help. It just does it. Only if the univers...

We could begin by telling the absolute truth, as we understand it, and see where we can go from there? We have never seen or heard of a swan with fur,...

=============================================== No, I stated it without proof, as proof is impossible. Where there can be no proof, we can only trade ...

Well, if we take "prove" to be more or less absolute in its meaning, then I suspect there's nothing we can prove. And if we dilute its meaning to avoi...

OK, so to prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans. No matter where they're hiding. Impossible, in practice...

No... ...yes, it does. But you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. :up: The proof here refers to the definition of...

To prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to be ...

...so your conclusion is? proof is almost certainly a waste of time.]

Then perhaps we might try the reasonable interchange of ideas? :razz:

Whatever it is, it isn't metaphysics!

Exactly. So why this focus on proof? There is rarely proof of anything, especially when such a proof would prove ( :wink: ) useful! :wink:

Awkwardness?

And what sense would that be? :chin: Yes, but so what?

Induction is saying "That swan is white, therefore all swans are white", isn't it? How much more complicated must we get?

No, it isn't.

And I think there is very little we can prove if you mean "prove" in a scientific sort of way? I'm pretty sure we can't prove what you said above, tho...

Yes, too much reliance on definition can do that to you. Not everything can be precisely defined. ... Not everything should be precisely defined. Some...

You just repeated what I said, but phrased it as though you were disagreeing. :chin: