Today an special lecture. It is not me who is talking, but Alfred Ayer himself. As a student I had to study the book named "The Revolution in Philosophy", a collection of articles written by great names from Oxford University, among which is Ayer. He gives a clear description of the locical positivism of the philosophers of the Wiener Kreis, the Vienna Circle. Let's listen to Ayer himself.
So far as their positivism went they were continuing an old philosophical tradition – it is remarkable how many of their most radical doctrines are already to be found in Hume. Their originality lay in their attempt to make it logically rigorous and in their use for the purpose of a developed and. sophisticated logical technique.
The positivist flavour of their thought comes out most strongly in their hostility to metaphysics. Metaphysics, which they construed as covering such allegedly philosophical enterprises as the attempt to describe Reality as a whole, or to find the purpose of the Universe, or to reach beyond the everyday world to some suprasensible spiritual order, was condemned by them not as being unduly speculative,
or even as being false, hut as being literally nonsensical. They reached this conclusion by the application of a criterion of meaning which is known as the verification principle. The precise formulation of this principle is a complicated matter: I am not sure that it has even yet been satisfactorily done.
But, roughly stated, it lays it down that the meaning of a statement is determined by the way in which it can be verified, where its being verified consists in its being tested by empirical observation. Consequently, statements like these of metaphysics to the truth or falsehood of which no empirical observation could possibly be relevant, are ruled out as factually meaningless.
The emphasis here is on the word 'factually'. It is not denied that language has other uses besides that of imparting factual information. Nor is it maintained that these other uses are unimportant, or that metaphysical statements may not serve them. They may, for example, express an interesting and challenging attitude to life. All that is claimed is that they are not capable of stating facts.
In Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, where the exclusion of metaphysies is effected very sharply, there is none the less a slight suggestion that the metaphysician may be grasping at truths which only the limitations of language prevent him from describing.
Its famous last sentence, 'Wovon man nicht sprechen kann darüber muss man schweigen' somewhat archaieally rendered by the English translators as 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent', seems to imply that there are things that one cannot speak about. The Vienna CircIe rejected this suggestion.
When it comes to metaphysics, said Neurath, 'one must indeed be silent, but not about anything'. Or as the Cambridge philosopher, F. P. Ramsey, an enthusiastic but critical follower of Wittgenstein, put it: 'What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either'. A great deal of bad philosophy comes from people thinking that they can somehow whistle what they cannot say.
A favourite argument of those who wish to defend metaphysics against the logical positivists' attack is that the verification principle is itself not verifiable. And, of course, it is not; it was not meant to be, It was put forward as a definition, not as an empirical statement of fact.
But it is not an arbitrary definition. lt purports to lay down the conditions which actually govern our acceptance, or indeed out understanding, of common sense and scientific statements, the statements which we take as describing the world 'in which we live and move and have our being'.
This leaves it open to the metaphysician to reply that there may be other worlds besides the world of science and common sense, and that he makes it his business to explore them. But then the onus is on him to show by what criterion his statements are to be tested: until he does this we do not know how to take them.
The Discussion
[13:17] Osrum Sands: fair enough
[13:17] Herman Bergson: So far Ayer himself...nice description wasnt it?
[13:18] Osrum Sands: wwwwwoooooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh
[13:18] Herman Bergson: If you have any question or remarks...go ahead
[13:18] hope63 Shepherd: clap-clap-clap-- nice-- but what is new...:?
[13:19] Herman Bergson: Was this too difficult or just plain and clear for you?
[13:19] Herman Bergson: nothing is new here Hope
[13:19] hope63 Shepherd: smile..:)
[13:19] Samuel Okelly: just takes a little digesting for me :)
[13:19] Osrum Sands: for me it will need time to digest
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: this means he is dismissing the whole vienna group??
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Ayer?
[13:20] Tiara Calvert: He seems to be critiquing them
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Not at all
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: for the most part??
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:20] Benjohn Korobase: this is sooo complicated......
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Yes, but that is because he had his own logical positivistic theory
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:20] Herman Bergson: He was a stubborn empiricist himself
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: can you put it in your words......his theory??
[13:21] Benjohn Korobase: and how would the world work around his idea of theory? and how would the world accept that?
[13:22] Herman Bergson: Ayers idea was that all statements refer to sense-data
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes so he is an empiricist
[13:22] Benjohn Korobase: how many years ago was all of this?
[13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: and that is how you make sense of facts
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: not that terribly far
[13:23] Herman Bergson: So factual statements are refering to our sensory experiences and not to a kind of unseen reality behind our experiences
[13:23] Herman Bergson: In fact his ideas are close to those of Hume
[13:23] itsme Frederix: doggy shutup
[13:23] Benjohn Korobase: rofl
[13:24] Samuel Okelly: does LP by definition highlight the limitations of “logic” alone to answer some of the bigger questions that are asked by the human condition?
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: bad kitty
[13:24] Benjohn Korobase: are there any philosophers in todays society?
[13:24] Avatar ejected.
[13:25] Herman Bergson: sorry....
[13:25] Osrum Sands: wonderfull question / comment Sam!
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: everyone is a philosopher
[13:25] Benjohn Korobase: in thier own way i would immagine
[13:25] Herman Bergson: I would say Yes samuel
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: unpublished for the most part
[13:26] Andret Beck: I have a question prof ... could u context the author? (maybe it is only a my problem, this is my first lesson) in which period we are?
[13:26] Herman Bergson: Philosophers in our society..
[13:26] Andret Beck: 1920??
[13:26] Herman Bergson: it is the period 1920 -1936
[13:26] Benjohn Korobase: why would such things go unpublished? our modern society need philosophers
[13:27] Andret Beck: ah ok ... thx, sorry my interruption
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: i mean each of us as philosophers do not really publish
[13:27] itsme Frederix: John Gray tries to add thoughts, and there are others too
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:27] Herman Bergson: To the logical positivists it was not the task of philosophy to create systems of philosophical knowledge
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: just talk a lot :-0
[13:27] Benjohn Korobase: then what was their task and was it valid?
[13:27] Herman Bergson: It had the task to analyse knowledge claims by others
[13:27] Osrum Sands: it is not publication that makes one a philosopher
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:28] Herman Bergson: and mainly the claims of science
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: hihi Laila
[13:28] Laila Schuman: :-)
[[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: dependacny on another philosophy should be fratenal and not paternal, the need of a dominant force in thinking is old world
[[13:29] Herman Bergson: I wouldnt know what the present day dominant force in thinking is
[13:29] Osrum Sands: what do you mean 'another' Aris ?
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: another's thinking should only stimulating your thinking
[13:30] Osrum Sands: yes
[13:30] Herman Bergson: That is what philosophy nowadays does, is my impression
[13:31] Osrum Sands: sure the current dominant force in thinking is as it alway has
[13:31] Osrum Sands: that is the search for truth
[13:31] Benjohn Korobase: ok if its an impression then how is it philosophy?
[13:31] Osrum Sands: oh no not that word again !!!!!!
[13:31] itsme Frederix: truth? or argumented thinking
[13:31] Herman Bergson: I would say that philosophy does not search for the truth at all
[13:32] Andret Beck: what do you mean with "truth"? which truth"?
[13:32] itsme Frederix: good think, because it seems hard to find
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:32] Herman Bergson: What philosophy does is analyzing and testing truth claims of others
[13:32] Laila Schuman: what do you mean
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: as we have learned
[13:32] Benjohn Korobase: does it search for the meaning of all things and the many reasons for them
[13:32] Osrum Sands: good point Herman
[13:32] Osrum Sands: thank you
[13:32] Herman Bergson: No Benjohn....
[13:33] Andret Beck: but maybe sometimes things doesn't have a meaning and they don't want to have anyone
[13:33] Herman Bergson: that is metaphysics....something that the logical posivists rejected
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Herman thats part of what philosophers do
[13:33] Osrum Sands: so are you saying that Philosophy is more of a structure to thinking rather then the thougths them selves
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: we need both protagonists or antagonists
[13:33] Herman Bergson: Well there still are philosophers that deal in metaphysics :-)
[13:34] Andret Beck: excuse me .. i didn't want to bore u ....
[13:34] Benjohn Korobase: how far back does metaphysics go?
[13:34] itsme Frederix: why not, you need some metaphysics - maybe just to judge it but ,,
[13:34] Herman Bergson: Yes Osrum...to the Logical Positivists philosophy is rather an activity.
[13:34] Osrum Sands: cool tar
[13:34] Herman Bergson: To the old Greeks Benjohn
[13:34] itsme Frederix: Herman do these LP's believe in their activity?
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: that is only as far as our records go benjohn:)
[13:35] Benjohn Korobase: i am new to this so please excuse me if i ask stupid questions
[13:35] Herman Bergson: in their logical analysis....no ..it is not a matter of belief
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:35] Benjohn Korobase: :P
[13:35] Herman Bergson: you may ask what you want Benjohn
[13:35] itsme Frederix: what is the goal or cause?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: no stupid questions really
[13:35] Benjohn Korobase: thank you
[13:35] Benjohn Korobase: thats good
[13:36] Herman Bergson: the goal is to establish the justification of scientific knowledge claim, I would say
[13:36] Osrum Sands: Ben is a friend of mine
[13:36] hope63 Shepherd: only answers can be stupid benjohn-not questions..:)
[13:36] Herman Bergson: right Hope :-)
[13:36] itsme Frederix: what is scientific knowledge - and if you say scientific what other is their (you seem to make a distinction)?
[13:37] Benjohn Korobase: would the world function properly without philosophers?
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: amen, itsme
[13:37] Herman Bergson: What is scientific knowledge...
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: what is beyond scientific?
[13:37] itsme Frederix: yes thats the real one Ari
[13:37] Osrum Sands: tested with a riger ... surly
[13:38] Benjohn Korobase: scientific knowledge is based upon theory..... theory has something to do with philosophy right?
[13:38] Herman Bergson: I would say: a structured and consistent description of reality which enables us to explain and predict
[13:38] Benjohn Korobase: ok
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: tell me what scientific is- and i'll tell you what's beyond:)
[13:38] Benjohn Korobase: passs
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: like 'I am'....'Science is'
[13:39] Samuel Okelly: many ppl have subjective spiritual or metaphysical experiences which they have "knowledge" of surely?
[13:39] Osrum Sands: yes Sam ... Agree
[13:39] Benjohn Korobase: is that like out-of-body expierences?
[13:39] Herman Bergson: Yes Samual...every person has knowledge of his own inner events
[13:39] itsme Frederix: so we have a apriori reality about we aim to can say something and then use that to explain and predict - > goal -> teleologic technocratic
[13:40] Tiara Calvert: Forgive me but I need to ask. Could it not be argued that personal knowledge, based on individual life experiences, could also be considered a "knowledge" and that people are just as likely to explain circumstance and predict actions/events based on such individual knowledge?
[13:40] Herman Bergson: I would not say such a thing Itsme
[13:40] Samuel Okelly: yes Itsme - many seek to look beyond the veil of perception i guess
[13:40] itsme Frederix: well besides structured you mentioned to do something with it
[13:40] Herman Bergson: yes....
[13:41] Osrum Sands: "The Doors"
[13:41] itsme Frederix: yep Huxley
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:41] Osrum Sands: hum
[13:41] Benjohn Korobase: :P
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: Is a mouse sitting on my lap?
[13:41] Herman Bergson: But this structured and consistent theory can be regarded as just a model
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: aldous?
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: of course, I think you are right Tiara, communual knowledge is not empirical until individually experienced
[13:41] Qwark Allen: nope
[13:41] Osrum Sands: and what is Alis Smoking
[13:41] itsme Frederix: just a model, and just do something with it - thats all -
[13:41] Benjohn Korobase: rofl
[13:41] Qwark Allen: wisdom is sitting there
[13:42] Benjohn Korobase: lol
[13:42] Andret Beck: scientific knowledge exist because there is an unscientific knowledge ....
[13:42] Andret Beck: (?)
[13:42] Osrum Sands: sorry Proff
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: no-- until individually accepted-not experienced..
[13:42] itsme Frederix: well thats still the other pittfall
[13:42] Herman Bergson: Regarding Tiara's remark....it requires a close analysis of the concept of Knowledge. To what does the word refer?
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Hope
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: is that you rodney/
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: hey Rod
[13:42] Rodney Handrick: yes
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: right on time
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: why yes Gemma
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: we should institiute wagers on rodney's arrival
[13:43] Benjohn Korobase: is the theory of parallel universe's something to do with philosophy?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: :)
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: as alway knowledge is a very slippery thing and can jump right out of you hands depenidng on flux
[13:44] Laila Schuman: no Benjohn...it has to do with some theoretical physics that feels like fun to play with
[13:44] Osrum Sands: or into your hands
[13:44] Herman Bergson: well Benjohn....there is an issue in philosophy of knowledge, called 'possible worlds'
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed Os
[13:44] Osrum Sands: )
[13:44] Benjohn Korobase: :P
[13:45] itsme Frederix: according to some this is the best one although not perfect
[13:45] itsme Frederix: Leibniz?
[13:45] Benjohn Korobase: the best world?
[13:45] Herman Bergson: It is at least the only one we know.
[13:45] itsme Frederix: you know as know not as knowledge?
[13:46] Benjohn Korobase: wooossshhhh
[13:46] itsme Frederix: known to me
[13:46] Benjohn Korobase: rofl
[13:46] Herman Bergson: It is the content of our knowledge I would say
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: other worlds are like religion, they only exist because you can not dispprove them
[13:46] Andret Beck: very interestin
[13:47] Andret Beck: aristotele ...
[13:47] itsme Frederix: I can prove that if their are alians they must be intelligent
[13:47] Herman Bergson: that is what a logical positivist would say Aristotle, indeed
[13:47] Osrum Sands: Aris settle
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:47] Laila Schuman: they are mathematically plausable... but it is very sophistocated math and not necessarily to be worried about
[13:47] Andret Beck: math is another language as literature laila
[13:47] Laila Schuman: grins
[13:48] Andret Beck: it doesn't matter that math talks about possible worlds
[13:48] Andret Beck: (I think)
[13:48] Benjohn Korobase: in the eyes of philosophy .... is having many religions wrong..... is there just supposed to be 1.... or even none?
[13:48] Osrum Sands: yes it does
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: doesnt add up to me. Laila...:))
[13:48] Herman Bergson: Yes andret but with this difference...Math isnt a descriptive language
[13:48] Samuel Okelly: wasnt it voltaire who said "tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" :)
[13:48] itsme Frederix: math never can talk about other worlds! it does not speak about worlds
[13:48] Benjohn Korobase: maths speaks numbers
[13:49] Osrum Sands: Sam ?
[13:49] Herman Bergson: That Benjohn is not a philosophical issue
[13:49] Laila Schuman: i think the word is ... paralell universes
[13:49] Andret Beck: yeah, but can u imagine 10.463 things as 2 things?
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: I hope my parellel self is doing well
[13:49] Samuel Okelly: "everything is for the best in the the best of all possible worlds"
[13:49] Tiara Calvert: :)
[13:49] Benjohn Korobase: no i couldnt
[13:49] itsme Frederix: oke Laila but apart from this world (existing in //) are there // of //?
[13:49] Andret Beck: numbers are subjective imagination
[13:50] Laila Schuman: ??
[13:50] Osrum Sands: even the best potential to fail
[13:50] itsme Frederix: oke to complicated math
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: I think the parallel self is the opposite of what you are here!
[13:50] Benjohn Korobase: without numbers the world would be stupid
[13:50] Benjohn Korobase: numbers defines many things we do in everyday life
[13:50] itsme Frederix: without a world numbers are stupid
[13:50] Andret Beck: of course ...
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: oh my Rodney, that guy is a terrible person
[13:50] Benjohn Korobase: that 2
[13:51] Andret Beck: also without language we were stupid
[13:51] Benjohn Korobase: very true
[13:51] Herman Bergson: I think we better stick to the subject again..:-)
[13:51] Osrum Sands: and without being without we would not know that we were without
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: commununally ignorant, Andret
[13:51] Herman Bergson: and use proper language :-)
[13:51] Andret Beck: (i'm sorry, this is my first lesson, maybe i'm arguing too much .. sorry proof)
[13:51] Benjohn Korobase: but a language that is unspoken but still understood by any educated person is math/numbers
[13:51] itsme Frederix: but still the question remains ,,, what about non scientific knowledge (or is that an contradictio)?? herman
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: not individually stupid
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: what is non-scientific knowledge?
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: wth
[13:52] Herman Bergson: I must agree that the epistemology of the Logical Positivists narrows itself down to scientific knowledge.
[13:52] Osrum Sands: what is you f\definition is ;science' would come in here itsme?
[13:52] itsme Frederix: well if you have scientific you make a distinction - don't you Ari
[13:52] Herman Bergson: But the central question is the question of MEANING
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: have to depart
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: see you sunday i hope :-)
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: only becaus language requires a tag, Itsme
[13:53] Herman Bergson: How to establish the meaning and thence the testability of a statement
[13:53] Osrum Sands: or is all knowledge just that
[13:53] Qwark Allen: i have to go to
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: bye gemma
[13:53] Benjohn Korobase: bye gemma
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: later on, Qwark
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Herman isn't it that most scientific knowledge have little meaning in life as you live it
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ty herman
[13:53] Andret Beck: bye guys, very nice too meet u
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: bye Qwark
[13:53] Osrum Sands: and the term 'scientific' just another category
[13:53] Qwark Allen: cya all later
[13:53] Wisdom Streeter: thanks!
[13:53] Herman Bergson: Bye Qwark
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Andret
[13:53] Benjohn Korobase: nice 2 meet u
[13:53] Andret Beck: i'm not leaving .. ;)
[13:54] Benjohn Korobase: oh lol
[13:54] Osrum Sands: cheers all
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: ok
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:54] Andret Beck: i just was saying hello to others eheheh
[13:54] Andret Beck: ;(
[13:54] Herman Bergson: What do you mean Itsme?
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Itsme
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: tell
[13:54] Laila Schuman: Nietzsche was VERY emperical... especially when he worked with Ray... but his "knowledge" became rather unscientific as he evolved
[13:54] Osrum Sands: yes go on
[13:54] itsme Frederix: scientific is 1, technical knowledge (technee - how to practize) is 2
[13:54] Tiara Calvert: I'm sorry to ask again, but isn't personal knowledge, a knowledge beyond scientific? You can't really test someones personal experience, can you?
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: does someting like scintific intuition evlove in a person?
[13:55] Laila Schuman: like the mature Neitsche
[13:55] Herman Bergson: No Tiara you cant
[13:55] Osrum Sands: yes .. surly Tiara
[13:55] Herman Bergson: Neither can someone claim truth about reality as we know it based on personal knowledge
[13:55] Tiara Calvert: *nods*
[13:55] itsme Frederix: Tiara it seems that that personal knowledge first need to be structure before LP recognizes it as maybe knowledge
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: byt individula knowdelge has to be scinetificall obtained unless you do not believe in tabula rasa
[13:56] Samuel Okelly: it seems LP is admittedly self-limiting to only that which can be empirically tested…
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: lp-?
[13:56] Andret Beck: (LP?)
[13:56] Herman Bergson: There is in fact no distinction as personal knowledge and non personal knowledge....
[13:56] Benjohn Korobase: and how would one obtain scientific knowledge being unbias to their own personal expierences
[13:56] Herman Bergson: for here you use the word knowledge in multiple meanings
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: Ayers must be correct in his theroy
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: and personal experiences have to be scinetific to be valid
[13:57] Osrum Sands: who says Aris ?
[13:57] Herman Bergson: the word 'knowledge' in the expression personal knowledge does not refer to scientific knowledge
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: or at least empirical
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: I do
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: .....but there is clearly "knowledge" that can be tested empirically and that which can not?
[13:58] Herman Bergson: That is what Ayer would say:
[13:58] Benjohn Korobase: but how would one gain any knowledge without already having some personal knowledge
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: what? sam?
[13:58] Herman Bergson: show me the criterion to verify your statements
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: the subjective self Aris
[13:58] Benjohn Korobase: me?
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: how can you test something not scientific?
[13:59] Herman Bergson: that is not the right way of saying it, Aristotle
[13:59] itsme Frederix: if you only come up to verify and nothing else will keep your brain busy - it will be dry after a while
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: you can only convince another to agree with you if unscientific
[13:59] Herman Bergson: we just test our statements empirically
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: doesnt make it so
[14:00] itsme Frederix: how do i test a math or logical statement empirical?
[14:00] AristotleVon Doobie: critical analysis
[14:00] Osrum Sands: the old 'Greek' question ... How does a thing happen
[14:00] Benjohn Korobase: yea but how would one be able to understand anythin scientific without already being able to have any personal expierences or and personal knowledge
[14:00] Herman Bergson: math and logic arent descriptive...so it makes little sense to ask for empirical testing....tho Mill would agree with your question Itsme
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: build a rocket and send it to space,itsme.. if it goes up.. you did test it..lol
[14:00] Osrum Sands: no why
[14:01] Osrum Sands: not*
[14:01] Herman Bergson: Logic you test on consistency
[14:01] Benjohn Korobase: but logic is not scientific
[14:01] Benjohn Korobase: is it?
[14:01] itsme Frederix: Thats why these math guys and other theorieticals can talk about // universums ;)
[14:01] Benjohn Korobase: LOL
[14:01] AristotleVon Doobie: common sense is applicable in our accettance of a stement
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: statement also
[14:02] Osrum Sands: and ... SORRY ... but how is the bloody stock market .... bummer
[14:02] Benjohn Korobase: rofl
[14:02] itsme Frederix: but you can not prove your logic system is consisten herman (Godel)
[14:02] Tiara Calvert: but there are many scientific "theories" which are regarded as facts, that are simply yet to be proven. Some are taught to us in schools. They are generally accepted and acknowledged as fact. But they are only theories which have not yet been proven and perhaps never can be. Yet those seem to slip past this empirical line in the sand.
[14:02] hope63 Shepherd: hurting you os'
[14:02] Samuel Okelly: use of syllogism would seem appropriate here maybe?
[14:02] hope63 Shepherd: ?
[14:03] Tiara Calvert: eek sorry:)
[14:03] Herman Bergson: Which theories do you mean Tiara?
[14:03] Tiara Calvert: big bang
[14:03] Tiara Calvert: evolution
[14:03] Osrum Sands: all good hope
[14:03] itsme Frederix: a fact is just a priori "knowledge" not thought about
[14:03] Herman Bergson: Yes I agree....that is a theory not knowledge
[14:03] hope63 Shepherd: BIG BANG IS A WORKING THEORY ..
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: like Da Vinci's helecopter, sometime time must pass to substantiate those things, Tiara
[14:04] Herman Bergson: for evolution we hve empirical evidence, I would say
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: agreed Herman
[14:04] hope63 Shepherd: don't teach in the states herman:)
[14:04] Osrum Sands: others would not Herman!
[14:04] itsme Frederix: hope sure, but if it works out good at last still remains the question
[14:04] Herman Bergson: I know, Hope, I know...:-)
[14:05] Osrum Sands: look you lot the world really is flat .... ok
[14:05] Tiara Calvert: :)
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: in most of the brains os:)
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: os
[14:05] Herman Bergson: dont fall of Osrum
[14:05] itsme Frederix: well evolution has some nasty "growth"/"better" in it, but things are changing yes
[14:05] Osrum Sands: sorry
[14:05] Herman Bergson: Australia is close to the edge :-)
[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[14:06] hope63 Shepherd: that's why aussies are struggling so hard..:)
[14:06] Osrum Sands: not Australis is not close to the edge ... it is the Edge ...
[14:06] Osrum Sands: ahahaha
[14:06] Osrum Sands: and we love it
[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: the battle between the empirical and spritual worlds
[14:07] Herman Bergson: I think that we should conclude our discussion of today with this clear statement: the world is flat
[14:07] Osrum Sands: now ther is life Aris
[14:07] Tiara Calvert: lol
[14:07] hope63 Shepherd: but better be on the edge and struggle than think one is the center of todays world..f.ex in politics..
[14:07] Samuel Okelly: :)
[14:07] Osrum Sands: hahah
[14:07] itsme Frederix: I agree Herman, but there is a hole in it to
[14:07] Tiara Calvert: Herman, it is flat where I am sitting.
[14:07] Herman Bergson: I would like to thank you for this inspiring discussion
[14:07] Benjohn Korobase: australia is the giant barbeque
[14:07] Benjohn Korobase: LOL
[14:07] AristotleVon Doobie: well it does look flat
|
|
