Transubstantiation

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 06:21 AM'] Lol. That is really screwed up science.

"physical properties do not change but it's substance does."

Substances..What do you think the physical properties make up!!

oy.

Nice try, but science proves all that stuff very wrong and impossible. [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

Your objection is why I attacked the argument to begin with - the way philosophers use the word "substance" and the way that scientists use the world "substance" are two different ways. You might as well be calling one "red" and another "green."

Physical substances are indeed that, physical substances - carbon, boron, radon, helium, potassium, &c. [i]ad nauseam[/i].

Philosophical substances are entirely different from that idea. A philosophical substance is that which makes a thing what it is - it is that thing which differentiates an elm tree from an oak and a fish from a dog. Aristotle saw your objection to the idea of universal categories (since everything is made up of the Elements) by positing substantial forms, which is what many metaphysicians ascribe to today.

There has been a shift in recent years (since the French Revolution) away from the idea of substantial form, but it is gaining popularity once again. The problem with rejecting universals is that one cannot speak coherently - one cannot say, "That's a dog," and mean anything, since it assumes that there are other dogs in the world. Instead of being something, a creature would just possess a bunch of properties - and since being predicates possessing, our language must reference a reality that has universal categories and substantial forms.

[Phatmasser777]

That makes absolutely no sound theory in science. You cant combine science with philosphy, giving a meaning to it thru science and add another thru philosphy.

You started off with talking about PHYSICS, but now you are trying to put a philosphical substance meaning into it.

Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:17 AM'] You cant combine science with philosphy.... Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy. [/quote]

You think you can have science without philosophy? :haha:

Come on, now!

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:17 AM'] That makes absolutely no sound theory in science. You cant combine science with philosphy, giving a meaning to it thru science and add another thru philosphy.

You started off with talking about PHYSICS, but now you are trying to put a philosphical substance meaning into it.

Keep Science with Science, Philosphy with Philosphy. [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

You're missing the point.

It doesn't HAVE to make sense in science because I'm not talking about physics - HE'S talking about physics, and I'm trying to say that it doesn't work.

That thing which makes a dog a dog, a tree a tree, a fish a fish and a man a man is not something physical, but something [i]metaphysical[/i]. These issues eventually become scientific (in a specific way), and what's why we have a field called the philosophy of science.

You also seem to have an operating assumption that seems to run something like, "If it does not make sense in science, then it cannot be true." I defy you to prove that scientifically.

You, sir, do not comprehend the argument - you are the one who is in the wrong. Keep your biases to yourself and examine the argument.

[Don John of Austria]

Phatmasser777 Science is a philosophy nothing more, it doesn't have any more claim on Truth than anyother Philosophy, if you understood science you would know that, secondly according to Science substance has nothing to do with physical properties NOTHING AT ALL, physical properties and Chemical Properties are totally results of structure, according to physics ALL things are made up of the same basic " matter" and it is the arangement of these materials that fives them their properties. ( I would say form but the dedicated moderate Realist on the thread would be upset.)

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 01:50 PM'] Phatmasser777 Science is a philosophy nothing more, it doesn't have any more claim on Truth than anyother Philosophy, if you understood science you would know that, secondly according to Science substance has nothing to do with physical properties NOTHING AT ALL, physical properties and Chemical Properties are totally results of structure, according to physics ALL things are made up of the same basic " matter" and it is the arangement of these materials that fives them their properties. ( I would say form but the dedicated moderate Realist on the thread would be upset.) [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

You can say it, so long as we understand we're using different terms.

I'm a neo-Thomist, what can I do?

[Don John of Austria]

No I understand Moderate realist metaphysics, I don't even disagree with them, I simply think the philosophy of science is finally grasping at the same Truths.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 2 2005, 07:30 AM']
You think you can have science without philosophy? :haha:

Come on, now! [/quote]
I dont think I KNOW.

Philosphy has no place in science, since science is fact philosphy is theory (not the same as the Scientific Theory!)

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 2 2005, 10:53 PM'] I dont think I KNOW.

Philosphy has no place in science, since science is fact philosphy is theory (not the same as the Scientific Theory!) [/quote]
JMJ
1/3 - Second Monday of Christmastide

Are you going to construct an argument for your assertion, or are you just going to take a shotgun to the argument? If you want to be taken seriously here, show me your argument. Otherwise, shut it.

[cathqat]

Nonsense. It is impossible to engage in any form of science without philosophical presuppositions. You would not even bother to study bees or gravity, for example, if you did not presuppose [i]that they are intelligible[/i] in some way. And that's just the beginning!

It is impossible to do anything without philosophical presuppositions. This is why it is so crucial that scientists be aware what their philosophical presuppositions are, and question and examine them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 3 2005, 12:53 AM'] I dont think I KNOW.

Philosphy has no place in science, since science is fact philosphy is theory (not the same as the Scientific Theory!) [/quote]
lol

Everyone has a worldview that shapes their view of reality.

[cathqat]

Phatmasser777, get yourself a copy of [i]Science, Faith, and Society[/i] by Michael Polanyi. A chemist and author of over 200 scientific papers, he turned in later life to philosophy. This 1946 collection of essays thoroughly dispels the absurd fable that scientific enquiry can exist without philosophical presuppositions.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:20 AM'] JMJ
1/3 - Second Monday of Christmastide

Are you going to construct an argument for your assertion, or are you just going to take a shotgun to the argument? If you want to be taken seriously here, show me your argument. Otherwise, shut it. [/quote]
You (I) dont need an arguement, its basic knowledge about science and philosphy.

Science is the search for FACTS and Evidence.
Philosphy is the search for meaning in life and experiences in life through thought.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:52 AM'] lol

Everyone has a worldview that shapes their view of reality. [/quote]
Is that a backslap put-down? Not very charitable. One more sin to add to your collection.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:15 AM'] Phatmasser777, get yourself a copy of [i]Science, Faith, and Society[/i] by Michael Polanyi. A chemist and author of over 200 scientific papers, he turned in later life to philosophy. This 1946 collection of essays thoroughly dispels the absurd fable that scientific enquiry can exist without philosophical presuppositions. [/quote]
1891-1976. Science has come a long, long way since then.

Personally I prefer Edward Wittens, I think thats his name, Professor at Advanded Study Institute in the US.

[url="http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/"]http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/[/url]

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:39 AM'] You (I) dont need an arguement, its basic knowledge about science and philosphy.

Science is the search for FACTS and Evidence.
Philosphy is the search for meaning in life and experiences in life through thought.

[/quote]
JMJ
1/3 - Second Monday of Christmastide

I'm withdrawing from arguing with you - you obviously have no intention of taking this seriously. I'm offering you the chance to defend your position with a coherent argument, and all you come back with is, "Nuh-uh!" I'm not wasting my time anymore.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:43 AM'] 1891-1976. Science has come a long, long way since then.
[/quote]
Science has not, however, abandoned its reliance on philosophical presuppositions. The 18th century notion that science could be purely objective has long since been discredited. It is impossible to do science without philosophical presuppositions. Every scientist has them. The smart ones are actually aware of it.

[Benedict]

As I stated in the other thread, PioNono, Phatmasser777 is not hear to help. He only causes a disturbance.

As a scientist (forensic toxicologist), I offer the following testimony: Science relies upon philosophy. It is in no way and cannot be construed in any way to exist separate from philosophy.

[cathqat]

Forensic toxicologist. Cool.

[Benedict]

I like it.

Also, I am well aware that I used the wrong word in my above post. Hear instead of here.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/EldricIV/Nazi.gif[/img]