Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:And this is how we get to the more concrete har (Score 1) 528

Bullshit. No concept of god is required, not even a negative one. You can derive that if the scientific method works then there is no god, but that goes the other way round. You can also not prove that the scientific method works, you can just observe it. Why do people always screw up implications?

Comment Re:And this is how we get to the more concrete har (Score 1) 528

I have once attended a lecture where a philosophy lecturer tried to explain propositional logic. This was so horribly done, I am sure none of the students understood anything. I also suspect the lecturer was mostly clueless as well. So if you do that, have a mathematician or a Computer Scientist teach it, at least they understand what it can and cannot do.

Comment Re:And this is how we get to the more concrete har (Score 1) 528

They don't underly the scientific method. Sorry. Philosophy is partially mathematics and partially funded on the scientific method. Any place where mathematics applies to reality (which are not a lot, considering the extreme diversity of mathematics), is "noisy" (i.e. no exact application), and the application is subject to the scientific method. While it is possible to do mathematics and parts of philosophy in ways not subject to the scientific method, these things then do not apply to (physical) reality and are generally not useful at all. Incidentally, all parts of philosophy and mathematics that are intended to apply to reality are founded on the scientific method. Really. The scientific method is what makes any kind of insight possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Working...