Christians afraid of Carl Sagan? (page 5)

PSacramento

i merely wonder how philosophy really express how water is. How does it do that?

Well, that's just it though, HOW does it do that?

How does philosophy explain WHY water is wet? is it wet because we want it to be wet? is it wet because we THINK it is wet, is it wet because we decide it is wet? what is wet?

Philosophy starts where science ends, science can explain the science behind water but it doesn't explain why water is the way it is and if it could be any other way and if it even IS that way it is or is that just our perception of how we want it to be?

Science can explain to us the water cycle, but it doesn't explain WHY the water cycle is the way it is or if it could be any other way or if it even exists outside of our own perception of reality nor should science TRY to explain those things.

bohm

PSac:

How does philosophy explain WHY water is wet?

yes thats the question. If i were to try to answer the question from a scientific point of view, i would note that water being wet is related to it being a liquid, as well as the properties of the interface between water and the medium it is in contact with.

For example, mercury and tar are liquids but they are not wet, and water can behave in a non-wet fasion om some surfaces, like certain plants and so on. So to understand why water is wet we both have to understand its macroscopic behaviour (as a liquid with certain density, viscosity, reynolds number, etc), and microscopic behaviour like when it form (or do not form) droplets. Every one of these questions have a huge litterature, often using ab-initio molecular dynamics simulations, see this paper

http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v96/i10/p101902_s1?isAuthorized=no

I suppose we also have to have a very good understanding of how the skin is composed microscopically, and how the nerves interact with the water interface, again a subject which i am sure has a large scientific litterature one can begin to explore.

Also note that each of these questions open up for a natural research program where we can objectively increase our knowledge of why water is wet, and who knows, perhaps learn something that can benefit humanity.

Now, what is the philosophical explanation? Where is it the rubber meet the road in philosophy and we find a good explanation of WHY water is wet? Saying the explanation could be a number of things is not an explanation -- a banana could be an apple if an apple was a banana, but surely that is not very insightfull, and an apple could really be a nut if we thoght nuts looked like apples, but again this is hardly earth-shattering revelations of truth.

Where is the research program? How does the philosophical investigation work? What have we learned?

PSacramento

bohm,

I have to be honest with you, it seems that youare asking a question in which you expect a "concrete" answer and that is NOT really the point of philosophy in general.

But to answer your question WITHOUT a question, LOL! Let me spew this philosophical view:

Why is water wet? Because it can be no other way.

Or:

Why is water wet?, It isn't wet, your perception of reality is what makes us think it is wet.

Or

Why is water wet? It isn't, wet is simply a arbitrary desciption of how water feels, if wet were dry then water would be dry and sand would be wet.

Of course there is also the view that water is wet because it was made wet to quench our thrist ;)

Og course there are different types of philosohies and I am kind of pusing the fringe a bit but my point is to distinguish philosophy and science not as incompatiable but as different enough that one can't really use the same methods of science to achieve the same goal in Philosophy.

Well...maybe on the surface one can.

james_woods

I suppose next someone will ask whether Schoedinger's damned cat is alive or dead...

PSacramento

I suppose next someone will ask whether Schoedinger's damned cat is alive or dead...

What is life? what is death?

Are we truly alive or is our conscience just part of the universe that makes us think we are?

And who likes cats anyways ?

bohm

ps --

Why is water wet? Because it can be no other way.

isnt this the kind of answer you would give to a 5 yeard old who asked you something you didnt want to admit you couldnt answer? what insight can we derive from saying: It is so because it is so? it seem like a very generic observation, one that say nothing specifically about water since it can be asked of anything.

you want to say that philosophy somehow take off where science end; first off i dont think its clear at all science has really "ended" somewhere in a meaningfull way with respect to water and wetness... i mean i just think i demonstrated that the answer "why is water wet" actually is subject to scientifical inquery.

secondly, and more importantly, do you really think philosophy has taken flight and given us any answers, per your examples?.

"God does not exist because it can be no other way" <--- did i just make an insightful philosophical argument people will ponder in the coming decades? i dont think so....

james_woods

What is life? what is death?

Are we truly alive or is our conscience just part of the universe that makes us think we are?

And who likes cats anyways ?

Sorry, meant to type Schrodinger -

I like my cat. She sits on the couch with me every evening and watches Law and Order.

I think that Schrodinger's cat is more likely dead than alive - after all, it could have just up and died even if the quantum experiment did not release the vial of poison...

SweetBabyCheezits

I ain't 'fraid of no ghost!

No doubt, Syl.

I do want to make sure that Christians who read this thread don't think I'm generalizing all Christians based on the fear of one. I was just surprised that a non-JW Christian expressed a JW-like phobia of questioning his/her own beliefs.

@JamesWoods: Anyone who mistakes a sci-fi novel like Contact for non-fiction science needs to work first on common sense before delving into science. But when I think of Sagan, it makes me wonder where science would be without imagination and curiosity?

VM44

[Sagen] In science we may start with experimental results, data, observations, measurements, "facts." We invent, if we can, a rich array of possible explanations and systematically confront each explanation with the facts."

Answer:That's exactly what Dr. Sagan fails to do. He seems to leave out facts (that conflict with his own presuppositions -- his own preferred (and politically correct) conclusions.

What "facts" does Dr. Sagen ignore? The website is not clear when making that statement.

Reminds me how the apologists criticize Hume by saying Hume does not follow his own criteria for knowledge (Hume's Fork..."commit it to the flames").

james_woods

But when I think of Sagan, it makes me wonder where science would be without imagination and curiosity?

Of course, that is an important aspect of science.

But it was really the U.S. Navy (under Admiral Rickover) that invented the nuclear submarine - not Jules Verne.

Christians afraid of Carl Sagan?

Share this