Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is both the rational (a priori) approach, and the empirical (a posteriori) approach.
The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.
It really isn't. The presumption argument requires that you are a mind reader and can be 100% certain that you know what unstated priors a person is operating under. If they deny them, you mere reassert it. It is a non-falisifable claim. Thus the attempt to disprove science required a return to faith.
Fish do fine and know nothing about water. Birds fly and don't understand aerodynamics. The vast majority of life in existence conducts energy production via ATP and only a small fraction of the human race has understood that. Fireflies don't know that they are doing the most efficient form of light production from chemicals ever found.
The whole presumption apologetics argument is a garbage heap only advocated for by people who value faith over experimental methods. A false attempt to sub in a bad contextualization from the things itself. You don't need to have a fully worked out from first principles understanding of the universe to conduct a basic experiment. It might be helpful, maybe, but it isn't required.
I don't understand how what you've said refutes my claim, sorry.
Very well. Try it a different way. You claim that scientists have priors that you have discovered. Please provide evidence of your claim. Use the scientific method and try to disprove it and fail.
Very nice. But now it's not an empirical debate, it's a linguistics debate. How do you define the scientific method?