Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daking
Bunch of cells ofcourse.
This is a completely facile and pointless argument. For the purposes of a rational debate Being 'certain' is an empirical measure , If i hit myself in the head with a hammer im certain that it will hurt. I know it will hurt and if i smack my self another 1000 times it will really fucking hurt. It doesnt require belief to know so, in the least not belief on the scale of bringing god into the equation. Science provides us with an answer why it hurts. God which by human experience necessarily is an act of faith does not.It is such aribtairy and out of proportion belief systems that are required to be purged from philisopical discussion.
Furthermore one shouldnt consider lack of certainty the sole domain of belief systems. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just one of many natural and physical processes that can be measured considered and deduced. Uncertaintly can be rationally addressed with far more rigour in science than it can be in faith.
|
There is no almost right there is wrong or right when talking about empirical evidence that is what I mean by certainty, when speaking empirically in relation to science all the laws in science simply haven't been disproved doesn't mean they exist. As in yes it is true there is overwhelming evidence in everything science torts but there is no proof that would allow anyone to make the assumption that it holds true for every case, nothing can be tested with all variables controlled, therefore it is not certain, absolute or a law, it requires a measure of belief because of that uncertainty.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principal limits as well as informs, as in we can never know the location or energy of any atomic particle with certainty or accuracy (if we knew the location of an electron then that electron would have infinite energy, which is impossible, or if we knew the energy then that electron could be anywhere in the universe), so my friend I could never truly know where I am located or how much energy all the particles in my body have. I believe that's pretty fucking irrational or how about the fact that an electron when faced with two choices of either going one way or another way chooses both unless we measure it. That you think doesn't require belief, what I’m saying is that you use science as not a belief system but it is a belief system in a way. Simply it's much more useful then religion when you want technological advancement.
Follow this path : man measures a line to be 1 m with an accuracy of +-.1 ( as in it could be any number between and including .9m to 1.1m)
Second man takes another 1 m line with the same accuracy and adds it to the previous
Third man does the same and so does fourth...... until 10000th man
Where now the line that has been completed could be off by +-1000m (1 m is about a yard)
It is an insufficient example but it does serve my point science lays foundations that are inaccurate or uncertain by small percentage and then it builds on it. It therefore requires belief to assume that modern science is correct as in going back to excluding belief from a philosophical argument you would also have to exclude science. Then all we are left with is opinions.
Which relates back to the abortion question no one will ever agree on it because the sides don't agree on anything relating to abortion, you can't have an argument on if something is right or isn't if you don't first have a common starting point.
Example : Let's objectively decide which is better a green or red apple
If one side doesn't believe in apples and never will or the other doesn't believe that colors matter or if they don’t agree on what apples are then there can be no satisfactory solution to this problem. Abortion isn't apples but I hope you get my point.