Ravus said:

Because my mind is the only thing that exists, so of course you must simply be a figment of my imagination, along with everything else. Without the mind to perceive them, are there any quantum particles to study?

---

Ravus said:

And credible philosophers have also been contradicting each other for centures, even millenia. Because philosophers require only rhetoric and debate, they don't need evidence, and therefore two philosophers with completely opposite viewpoints can both use the same human logic to arrive at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The beauty of science is in the evidence and the proof; humans have evolved beyond simply debating and rhetoric, which philosophy revolves around. Scientists don't need to argue really, because they can just point to the evidence and observations to help reveal the true nature of the universe (so we think).

---

Puppet1 said:

You see, this is the strength of philosophy, and the weakness of science. Science sees one thing happen and says "this is what is, and will ever be", philosophy arrives at two opposite conclusions off of the same rehetoric, because philosophers understand that their is no "one conclusion" or any one single truth, reguardless of what we sense.

"Just because you see it, doesnt mean its there. " -radiohead.

science as far as im concerned, is no less ingnorant and arrogant than the religous zealots that say earth was created in 6 days.

---

Fospher said:

Puppet1 said:

You see, this is the strength of philosophy, and the weakness of science. Science sees one thing happen and says "this is what is, and will ever be", philosophy arrives at two opposite conclusions off of the same rehetoric, because philosophers understand that their is no "one conclusion" or any one single truth, reguardless of what we sense.

"Just because you see it, doesnt mean its there. " -radiohead.

science as far as im concerned, is no less ingnorant and arrogant than the religous zealots that say earth was created in 6 days.

---

Wrong. A "fact" or a "law" in science means a repeatable hypothesis and tested experiment that has not been yet proven otherwise. This leaves a lot of room for future interpertation.

And please stop pointing out ignorance in others and look in the mirror.

---

Fospher said:

Puppet1 said:

You see, this is the strength of philosophy, and the weakness of science. Science sees one thing happen and says "this is what is, and will ever be", philosophy arrives at two opposite conclusions off of the same rehetoric, because philosophers understand that their is no "one conclusion" or any one single truth, reguardless of what we sense.

"Just because you see it, doesnt mean its there. " -radiohead.

science as far as im concerned, is no less ingnorant and arrogant than the religous zealots that say earth was created in 6 days.

---

Wrong. A "fact" or a "law" in science means a repeatable hypothesis and tested experiment that has not been yet proven otherwise. This leaves a lot of room for future interpertation.

And please stop pointing out ignorance in others and look in the mirror.

---

Quote:

If you argue that everything is subjective, perhaps density = mass/ volume is simply a persistent delusion, but that would nevertheless make it a law to our subjective experience.

---

A lot is said in this forum about how nobody ever changes their beliefs.  I don't necessarily have many firm beliefs, but you managed to clarify something very basic that has been rattling around in my mind.  In effect, this statement is directly reponsible for my desire never to nit-pick about this crap again.  And I thank you for it.