Is that sense Joe is using the word "deeper"? I does not seem to be to me, given he was arguing theology. It is a shame hwe so rarely posts here any more.Jim B. wrote:It's an example of logical relations that determine all thought and language, including scientific. In that sense, it's 'prior' to, and broader than, empirical knowledge.
Looking below the surface
Moderator:Metacrock
Re: Looking below the surface
He's probably using it in the sense of 'depth of being' ie Tillich's ideas. He'd probably also agree that deeper can mean 'explainable in terms of.'The Pixie wrote:Is that sense Joe is using the word "deeper"? I does not seem to be to me, given he was arguing theology. It is a shame hwe so rarely posts here any more.Jim B. wrote:It's an example of logical relations that determine all thought and language, including scientific. In that sense, it's 'prior' to, and broader than, empirical knowledge.
Re: Looking below the surface
Okay.Jim B. wrote:He's probably using it in the sense of 'depth of being' ie Tillich's ideas. He'd probably also agree that deeper can mean 'explainable in terms of.'
Previously you said:
An understanding of the scope and limits of scientific investigation. We know this through an understanding of the nature of science.
The knowledge that I am conscious and that I am experiencing red and the extrapolation from that fact that all instances of this kind of knowledge are immediately given and unimpeachable.
The knowledge that torturing children for fun is morally wrong.
The knowledge that it is impossible that all promises are broken and that all paintings are forgeries.
The knowledge that all bachelors are unmarried men.
The knowledge that pleasure is good and pain is evil.
So your position is that the laws of nature are explainable in terms of one of the above? There is an important distinction here between the process of science and what science is looking at. If you want to claim that how science is conducted is explainable in these terms or that scientists use the above as tools when doing their work, then I think you may have an argument.
However, I understood this to be about scientific knowledge of how the universe works. For example, relativity. On the one hand we have how Einstein came up with the theory and how it was subsequently supported. On the other we have the theory itself as a good model for how gravity works. I think we are talking about the latter, and if deeper means "explainable in terms of" (and I think it does), then I question how relativity is explainable in terms of any of the above.
Can you give any instance of a claim in science that is "explainable in terms of" anything outside of science?
Re: Looking below the surface
reason itself is not actually science.However, I understood this to be about scientific knowledge of how the universe works. For example, relativity. On the one hand we have how Einstein came up with the theory and how it was subsequently supported. On the other we have the theory itself as a good model for how gravity works. I think we are talking about the latter, and if deeper means "explainable in terms of" (and I think it does), then I question how relativity is explainable in terms of any of the above.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Looking below the surface
No, because these things that I listed are better related to value and meaning, to epxerience. Science can't account for the laws either, at least now. Maybe eventually science may be able to explain what mechanism is responsible for the distribution of just these constants in this universe, assuming a multi-verse. But there would always be a level that is unexplainable by science. Of course, IF there is God, God would be a 'deeper' explanation for the laws than any such mechanism, being more on the order of an explanation of 'why' than 'how,' altho that fact alone doesn't weigh for or against there being God.The Pixie wrote:Okay.Jim B. wrote:He's probably using it in the sense of 'depth of being' ie Tillich's ideas. He'd probably also agree that deeper can mean 'explainable in terms of.'
Previously you said:
An understanding of the scope and limits of scientific investigation. We know this through an understanding of the nature of science.
The knowledge that I am conscious and that I am experiencing red and the extrapolation from that fact that all instances of this kind of knowledge are immediately given and unimpeachable.
The knowledge that torturing children for fun is morally wrong.
The knowledge that it is impossible that all promises are broken and that all paintings are forgeries.
The knowledge that all bachelors are unmarried men.
The knowledge that pleasure is good and pain is evil.
So your position is that the laws of nature are explainable in terms of one of the above? There is an important distinction here between the process of science and what science is looking at. If you want to claim that how science is conducted is explainable in these terms or that scientists use the above as tools when doing their work, then I think you may have an argument.
However, I understood this to be about scientific knowledge of how the universe works. For example, relativity. On the one hand we have how Einstein came up with the theory and how it was subsequently supported. On the other we have the theory itself as a good model for how gravity works. I think we are talking about the latter, and if deeper means "explainable in terms of" (and I think it does), then I question how relativity is explainable in terms of any of the above.
Can you give any instance of a claim in science that is "explainable in terms of" anything outside of science?