21 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 3 '16 at 18:41 history edited Jesse Cohoon CC BY-SA 3.0
added 77 characters in body
Oct 3 '16 at 18:39 comment added Jesse Cohoon @jobermark fair enough. But it would open a TON of moral/ ethical/ legal questions surrounding its study!
Oct 3 '16 at 18:32 comment added user9166 @JesseCohoon That is a complete non sequitur. I would contend that if we discover life after death exists, and has any effect on anyone that is not entirely psychological, it will immediately spawn a new branch of physics, and will be considered physical. Basically, the distinction is evasive. You do or do not believe in things, you don't believe in non-physical things, except as a cop-out.
Oct 3 '16 at 18:23 comment added Jesse Cohoon @jobermark so you will also contend that we can presently prove via current scientific means that life after death exists?
Oct 3 '16 at 17:06 comment added user9166 I would also contend that nothing non-physical exists only because we keep redefining 'physical' so that it covers everything we decide really exists.
Oct 3 '16 at 12:56 review Reopen votes
Oct 6 '16 at 14:50
Oct 3 '16 at 12:39 comment added Jesse Cohoon I think the idea is that we can choose not to follow these things and suffer the consequences (even if only morally) of hurting others or ourselves in the process (up to and including our own death, if we don't care about such a thing). It's only by agreement of the mass that we have such ideas.
Oct 3 '16 at 12:37 history edited Jesse Cohoon CC BY-SA 3.0
added 101 characters in body
Oct 3 '16 at 11:40 history closed Alexander S King
jeroenk
user19563
user2953
Duplicate of How would you know if nonobservable entities exist?
Oct 3 '16 at 10:34 history edited Eliran
edited tags
Oct 3 '16 at 8:47 comment added Isaacson @user4894 "Ownership" is not a thing which exists outside of our use of the word ownership, it is not a concept that pre-exists our actual, physically verifiable use of the term. Same goes for manners and laws, these things are verifiable by their effect and linguistic use. They are different from spiritual or other metaphysical theories, which (currently) have no means of verification.
Oct 3 '16 at 8:39 comment added Isaacson @Alexander I don't think the Logical Positivist approach failed, I think it went out of fashion. Combined with ordinary language philosophy, and using utility as a measure, it is quite capable of handling those unobservable quantities that it is useful to theorise about.
Oct 3 '16 at 8:24 answer Isaacson timeline score: 2
Oct 3 '16 at 5:32 review Close votes
Oct 3 '16 at 11:40
Oct 3 '16 at 5:19 comment added Alexander S King This question has already been asked see here. The short answer is: Some philosophers, known as Logical Positivist tried to do exactly what you said, but their approach failed, because it turns out we can't eliminate unobservable quantities from our theories or language. See my reply for more details.
Oct 3 '16 at 3:18 answer MmmHmm timeline score: 0
Oct 3 '16 at 2:38 comment added user4894 My point is that those unscientific things such as traffic laws, property ownership, and manners, have a HUGE impact on our everyday reality. Those things are just as real as the law of gravity. You can't be claiming property ownership isn't real, can you? Or that the only difference between red and green light is their wavelength? There's a book by Searle called The Construction of Social Reality that talks about this.
Oct 3 '16 at 1:55 comment added Jesse Cohoon @user4894 soft sciences are still science, but studied differently. Religion (and some philosophy) makes big claims.. backed by no studies, no agreement other than the word of the claimants, etc.
Oct 3 '16 at 1:50 comment added user4894 Question. A Martian physicist is able to identify red and green light by their wavelengths. Yet she has no way to know which means stop and which means go. That convention is a social agreement and not a matter of physical law. Yet violating such a convention can be fatal. Is that something you consider "nonphysical?" Aren't law, property, social conventions, religion, which fork to eat with, etc., all nonphysical yet meaningful conventions? Science can not determine any of these things. Most of our reality is far outside the bounds of science. Agree? Disagree?
Oct 3 '16 at 0:02 answer Camille Henry timeline score: 0
Oct 2 '16 at 23:25 history asked Jesse Cohoon CC BY-SA 3.0