Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 12th, 2020 #1
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hills north of Hillsboro WV
Posts: 996
Jerry Abbott
Default The synergy of philosophy and science, and the limits of philosophy apart from science

The synergy of philosophy and science, and the limits of philosophy apart from science

A Reprise of the Central Point

David Sims - revised 12 August 2020

I think that philosophers know as little about ethics, absent any empirical research into it, than they do about anything else. Rather, the reason philosophers make free, at present, with their ethical pronouncements is the same as the reason the Church made free with its astrodynamical pronouncements in the 17th century. The reason is that science has not yet investigated the subject with rigor.

Philosophy doesn't gather the facts of reality within itself, whether we are speaking about physics or about ethics. It is as blind for one as it is for the other. Nobody is privileged to choose what is moral, which is what philosophers are really trying to do, however they might present it as an adventure of discovery through pure reason.

You can't discover anything through pure reason. You might form a self-consistent conjecture that way, but you haven't made a discovery unless you have gathered data from nature via observation or experiment. Even the laws of logic weren't deduced by logic. An attempt to do so would involve an invalid circular argument. Rather, mankind did a lot of informal research, as part of their general life experience, regarding which forms of argument were reliable and which forms of argument were unreliable. That's the empiricism that informed Aristotle, who first codified the laws of logic.

Nature has its own standard for morality, and that standard is survival. What does not exist is worthless. And an improper moral system that causes its own destruction via that of its practitioners is worse than worthless; like a disease, it has a negative worth.

That a purported ethical system sounds good to you, that it pleases you, does not mean that it is true ethics.

What philosophy does is concoct logically self-consistent narratives, which might or might not be the truth. Philosophy and science inform each other: philosophy informs science about correct procedure, about logic, and science tells philosophy what the discovered facts are and which of its narratives has been disqualified from being truth.

A philosopher who does not engage with science is blind to reality. He forever spins conjectures that he has no way of checking. He gets into arguments with similarly blind other philosophers who insist that their conjectures are superior to his, and none of them really knows what the truth is because none of them has indulged in experimental verification. Their arguments are so much hot air.

You know the old saying among atheists: "As science advances, God retreats," meaning that once experiment has revealed the true nature of a part of existence, the older theological explanations quickly seem obsolete — if not outright ridiculous. After three or four hundred years of trying to refute a scientific explanation that is supported at every turn by every test, while at the same time having their increasingly contrived alternatives either disproved or shown to be rather suspiciously untestable, the theologians adopt the scientific explanation, grudgingly at first, but after a generation they are pretending that they had never thought differently. And they go around saying things like "There's no real conflict between science and religion."

Ethics is like that. Philosophers may claim to have knowledge about ethics because they believe it to be subject to their choices. Some philosophers may believe that they can create ethics by making their preferences known. On the contrary, I say. Those philosophers are wrong. Nature constrains the truth about ethics to the same degree that it constrains the truth about gravity. This truth is something to discover. It isn't something to be decided.

When you discover the truth about ethics, you might not like it. You might wish that it were something else. But it will be the truth, nevertheless. The approval of philosophers isn't required.

Last edited by Jerry Abbott; August 12th, 2020 at 07:29 PM.
Old August 13th, 2020 #2
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240

This topic is discussed here:

"the Aryan vs the jew in physics and metaphysics"
guest: RA
topics discussed: physics/metaphysics and the esotericism of Evola; investigation of shills and cryptos; practical strategies
Old 4 Weeks Ago #3
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 20

"The Wisdom and Ra and the Pragmatics of War" with
topics discussed: the Reality principle and reality deniers: a solid realistic spiritual foundation for organization and greyman strategy


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.
Page generated in 0.06045 seconds.