Here are 10 key ideas from source 1: 1. **Realism, a Surprisingly Central Theme:** The speakers express surprise that "realism" is a significant theme at a conference exploring the intersection of science and theology. This suggests that the very notion of what constitutes "reality" is a point of contention and exploration within these fields. 2. **Common Sense vs. Philosophical Inquiry:** One speaker observes that everyday people inherently accept the existence of a real world. Philosophical debates about realism, however, often seem detached from this common-sense view, leading to complex and potentially abstract lines of questioning. 3. **The Legacy of Descartes and the Problem of Perception:** The conversation traces the roots of skepticism about our ability to perceive reality accurately back to René Descartes. Descartes' emphasis on the mind as the starting point for knowledge created a philosophical hurdle: How can we be sure our mental representations correspond to an external reality? 4. **Optical Illusions and the Limits of Sensory Experience:** The source uses the example of optical illusions to illustrate the potential disconnect between our perceptions and reality. This highlights how our senses, while providing information about the world, can also be fooled, raising questions about the reliability of direct experience. 5. **Shifting Views of Scientific Realism:** The source outlines a historical progression of philosophical perspectives on realism in science, from logical positivism to the more nuanced views of neopositivism. Thinkers like Karl Popper emphasized the importance of falsification, while Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea of "incommensurable paradigms," challenging the notion of a linear progression toward scientific truth. 6. **The Decline of "Truth" in Philosophy of Science:** As philosophical debates about realism intensified, the very concept of "truth" became increasingly problematic. This suggests a shift within the philosophy of science toward understanding scientific theories as models or interpretations rather than absolute representations of reality. 7. **Theological Realism and Its Alternatives:** The discussion extends the concept of realism to theology, exploring the implications of "theological non-realism". This perspective questions whether theological statements should be interpreted as objective claims about God or as expressions of human religious experience. 8. **The Social Construction of Knowledge:** The source introduces the idea that knowledge, including both scientific and theological, might be socially constructed. This perspective challenges the idea of objective truth, suggesting that our understanding of the world is shaped by social, cultural, and historical factors. 9. **The Resurgence of Realism in the Face of Relativism:** Despite the challenges posed by social constructionism and other forms of relativism, there's a renewed interest in realism within both science and theology. This suggests a desire to find a middle ground between acknowledging the influence of social factors on knowledge and affirming the possibility of objective reality. 10. **Realism as an Ongoing Dialogue:** The conversation in source 1 does not offer definitive answers about the nature of realism in science and theology. Instead, it highlights the complexity of these issues and the importance of continued dialogue and exploration.
Euclid, Descartes, Newton and Einstein all think geometry starts with 1D instead of starting from 0D. This is why we have so many contradictions and paradoxes.
@@Jun_kid that's the same thing in my opinion ....the better case you could make is by saying "how can i be sure that i'm thinking " to which i will say "i doubt if i'm thinking or not but doubting itself is thinking so i' can be sure that i'm thinking"....if you one step further to kant's critique of pure reason , you could doubt reasoning and say that reason itself sets the limits of what we can know ....at the end i would say we don't know anything for sure
@@parthdeshwal4419 I can exist without thinking or reason at all. Presumably you don't think your existence stops just because you enter deep sleep? As long as my physical location is verified by another physical location than I exist. If I am in a coma, I still exist because the molecules in my body are interacting with the molecules on the ground (assuming I am laying on the ground). Whether I know who, what or where I am is irrelevant, I am wherever I am in a state of Existence.
@@Jun_kidThe original phrase goes: “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum” which translates to “I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am” Descartes is making the point that you cannot consistently doubt your existence, as you are the one doing the doubting in the first place, i.e., there is a thinking thing or substance. So you know with certainty that you exist. That's the first principle of Descartes or your starting point. At least you should read Descartes before talking about Descartes and his philosophy!
@@anteodedi8937 Fully agree. I'll just add that "I think therefore I am" is a statement of the order of inference. Compare to the statement "I am coughing, therefore I have a cold". This is not a statement that coughing causes colds. It's a statement that me being aware that I have a cough preceded, and in a sense caused, me knowing that I have a cold.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, absolutely. The addition is spot on. I should have made that clear. Jun_kid's main error is that he takes the statement as a statement that thinking causes my existence.
Oh absolutely, there's clearly an actionable correspondence between what we perceive and the actual state of affairs. The main question here is how to think about the implications of that. The two main schools of thought in the philosophy of science are realism, which says that our perceptions and reasoning about them reveal the world as it really, or truly is. Or at least that this is possible. The empiricist view is that all we can really, say is that we have some observations, we form a theory that describes how these observations relate to each other over time (for example scientific theories) and these are effective or not. This doesn't allow us to say anything about what is or isn't 'real' though. Empiricists don't deny that there is a real world, they deny that we have anything like direct access to it, and can know it's 'true' nature.
28 years Millwright career scaled down with vibration analysis to molecular heal cancer . Today's 12-year science Project Trinity . Holistic Health Coach KELLY Dyer
...If we honestly keep an objective outlook, remember that our reality, Time/Space is just here & now, & there is a different realm reality or level, there are many differences between, our life & Eternity. How can we be so arrogant as to think our present Time/Space is the only reality We are born open blank canvases, each of us with different fingerprints Live, learn, grow in knowledge as you have. We may know the systems of the synapse, the mechanical electrical chemical operation. How marvelous, I would tell you there is so much more to learn, & experience, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
For the test of true knowledge is humility, for there arises ego are pretentiousness. The true test of Wisdom is forbearence and mercy, for there arises the true vision of cause and effect, so being of faith to the law that was laid down, that is the princple of balance. The true test of power is in mercy and undetstanding, in realizing true power is equanimity, in allowing others to believe that you're wrong, even allowing oneself to suffer the injustice and denigration by those unwittingly incurring great karmic debt. Persons worship their minds; what's familiar to them, what their personalities aspire towards, and how their mileu shapes their thinking. Overcoming the mind is very difficult tje wiseman state. Without such trial and surmounting one doesn't hasn't true vision.
@TheEmptyBeing for where did I state such? All the wiseman reveal that the mind is what bondages a man, and too, the mind also is what may liberate them if they seek to understand such powers and are of discipline.
@@S3RAVA3LM All aboard the pretentious woo woo train. Do you realize you are the most ego driven poster on this channel? Well maybe you have some competition with the book seller.
I'm deep diving into the Parmenides(Taylor's translation) and Proclus diodachus commentary on this work - along with some other works that align with and contribute to this. Proclus commentary is basically the entirety of Platonics - and too can help one to further understand all the works attributed to Plato - and touches on the very Source(God), the Divine, the gods, principles, causes, all levels, degrees, theophanies, natures, relations, to the realm of phenomena and matter that is the lowest of levels. Nobody is going to study this, it requires to much work, effort, yearning, commitement, and vision. My future is over, it's gone - dreams and hopes, burried, cry cry. Most people just like to comment and aren't serious about inquiry. I comment only to get better at my grammar, conveying or construing very difficult concepts so succinct, too grasping the scope and limits of mind, working on antinomies, unserstanding words and meanings better, ultimately nomenclature - an unbelievable science. It feels like a race against the clock for me. Imagine getting reincarnated and having to start all over from square, but at -50 again, therefore spending half your life just to break even, to undo all the bs and injustice that was done to us; to break out of and free from our minds construct, and bias.
No, it is not safe... Thousands and thousands of lives all over this world have been victimized, NOT by the likes of Mother Theresa but by the likes of your Godless kind...
@@evaadam3635 Mother Theresa, who famously refused to allow her patients dying in agony to be given pain killers, because she said that their pain was "part of God's plan". Also, rather than spending the millions of dollars donated to her on improving her hospices, which remained threadbare slop houses, it all went on very nicely furnished convents.
@@simonhibbs887... I am not really shocked why a satan supporter can malign a saint... yes, of course, if you are given a choice between Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy whom you want to baby-sit your child, Ted Bundy would be your best pick, no doubt....
Have you ever placed your idea and conception of theology and philosophy on trial. There's are reason those with eyes see not, and those with ears hear not, for all remains but a parable to them. For scriptures and sacred texts are profound and concocted in the form of mysticism for a reason. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but are of an opinion that is not scrupulous or erudite.
There's an appropriate theology and philosophy for every time and place, and sometimes for every individual. The fact that there are places, people, and societies for whom they aren't of value doesn't mean they're broadly "outdated."
This woman is the smartest person I've seen on this .her memory is outstanding.
Here are 10 key ideas from source 1:
1. **Realism, a Surprisingly Central Theme:** The speakers express surprise that "realism" is a significant theme at a conference exploring the intersection of science and theology. This suggests that the very notion of what constitutes "reality" is a point of contention and exploration within these fields.
2. **Common Sense vs. Philosophical Inquiry:** One speaker observes that everyday people inherently accept the existence of a real world. Philosophical debates about realism, however, often seem detached from this common-sense view, leading to complex and potentially abstract lines of questioning.
3. **The Legacy of Descartes and the Problem of Perception:** The conversation traces the roots of skepticism about our ability to perceive reality accurately back to René Descartes. Descartes' emphasis on the mind as the starting point for knowledge created a philosophical hurdle: How can we be sure our mental representations correspond to an external reality?
4. **Optical Illusions and the Limits of Sensory Experience:** The source uses the example of optical illusions to illustrate the potential disconnect between our perceptions and reality. This highlights how our senses, while providing information about the world, can also be fooled, raising questions about the reliability of direct experience.
5. **Shifting Views of Scientific Realism:** The source outlines a historical progression of philosophical perspectives on realism in science, from logical positivism to the more nuanced views of neopositivism. Thinkers like Karl Popper emphasized the importance of falsification, while Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea of "incommensurable paradigms," challenging the notion of a linear progression toward scientific truth.
6. **The Decline of "Truth" in Philosophy of Science:** As philosophical debates about realism intensified, the very concept of "truth" became increasingly problematic. This suggests a shift within the philosophy of science toward understanding scientific theories as models or interpretations rather than absolute representations of reality.
7. **Theological Realism and Its Alternatives:** The discussion extends the concept of realism to theology, exploring the implications of "theological non-realism". This perspective questions whether theological statements should be interpreted as objective claims about God or as expressions of human religious experience.
8. **The Social Construction of Knowledge:** The source introduces the idea that knowledge, including both scientific and theological, might be socially constructed. This perspective challenges the idea of objective truth, suggesting that our understanding of the world is shaped by social, cultural, and historical factors.
9. **The Resurgence of Realism in the Face of Relativism:** Despite the challenges posed by social constructionism and other forms of relativism, there's a renewed interest in realism within both science and theology. This suggests a desire to find a middle ground between acknowledging the influence of social factors on knowledge and affirming the possibility of objective reality.
10. **Realism as an Ongoing Dialogue:** The conversation in source 1 does not offer definitive answers about the nature of realism in science and theology. Instead, it highlights the complexity of these issues and the importance of continued dialogue and exploration.
Great history lesson on the development of philosophy into and out of scientific use in bringing about consensus: scientific conscience.
Euclid, Descartes, Newton and Einstein all think geometry starts with 1D instead of starting from 0D.
This is why we have so many contradictions and paradoxes.
A very fascinating conversation! No wonder she has doctoral degrees in Philosophy as well as in Theology.
❤❤❤❤❤
it just reminds of descartes' "i think therefore i am"....that's the only thing we could be sure of
@@Jun_kid that's the same thing in my opinion ....the better case you could make is by saying "how can i be sure that i'm thinking " to which i will say "i doubt if i'm thinking or not but doubting itself is thinking so i' can be sure that i'm thinking"....if you one step further to kant's critique of pure reason , you could doubt reasoning and say that reason itself sets the limits of what we can know ....at the end i would say we don't know anything for sure
@@parthdeshwal4419 I can exist without thinking or reason at all. Presumably you don't think your existence stops just because you enter deep sleep? As long as my physical location is verified by another physical location than I exist. If I am in a coma, I still exist because the molecules in my body are interacting with the molecules on the ground (assuming I am laying on the ground). Whether I know who, what or where I am is irrelevant, I am wherever I am in a state of Existence.
@@Jun_kidThe original phrase goes: “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum” which translates to “I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am”
Descartes is making the point that you cannot consistently doubt your existence, as you are the one doing the doubting in the first place, i.e., there is a thinking thing or substance. So you know with certainty that you exist. That's the first principle of Descartes or your starting point.
At least you should read Descartes before talking about Descartes and his philosophy!
@@anteodedi8937 Fully agree. I'll just add that "I think therefore I am" is a statement of the order of inference. Compare to the statement "I am coughing, therefore I have a cold". This is not a statement that coughing causes colds. It's a statement that me being aware that I have a cough preceded, and in a sense caused, me knowing that I have a cold.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, absolutely. The addition is spot on.
I should have made that clear. Jun_kid's main error is that he takes the statement as a statement that thinking causes my existence.
Yes, there are optical illusions, but the senses do a very good job of interpreting reality. If not, driving on the freeway would be impossible. 😂
Oh absolutely, there's clearly an actionable correspondence between what we perceive and the actual state of affairs. The main question here is how to think about the implications of that. The two main schools of thought in the philosophy of science are realism, which says that our perceptions and reasoning about them reveal the world as it really, or truly is. Or at least that this is possible.
The empiricist view is that all we can really, say is that we have some observations, we form a theory that describes how these observations relate to each other over time (for example scientific theories) and these are effective or not. This doesn't allow us to say anything about what is or isn't 'real' though. Empiricists don't deny that there is a real world, they deny that we have anything like direct access to it, and can know it's 'true' nature.
28 years Millwright career scaled down with vibration analysis to molecular heal cancer . Today's 12-year science Project Trinity . Holistic Health Coach KELLY Dyer
She looks a bit like Ricky Gervais
We were bred to contribute to GDP.
...If we honestly keep an objective outlook, remember that our reality, Time/Space is just here & now, & there is a different realm reality or level, there are many differences between, our life & Eternity. How can we be so arrogant as to think our present Time/Space is the only reality
We are born open blank canvases, each of us with different fingerprints
Live, learn, grow in knowledge as you have. We may know the systems of the synapse, the mechanical electrical chemical operation. How marvelous, I would tell you there is so much more to learn, & experience, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
For the test of true knowledge is humility, for there arises ego are pretentiousness.
The true test of Wisdom is forbearence and mercy, for there arises the true vision of cause and effect, so being of faith to the law that was laid down, that is the princple of balance.
The true test of power is in mercy and undetstanding, in realizing true power is equanimity, in allowing others to believe that you're wrong, even allowing oneself to suffer the injustice and denigration by those unwittingly incurring great karmic debt.
Persons worship their minds; what's familiar to them, what their personalities aspire towards, and how their mileu shapes their thinking.
Overcoming the mind is very difficult tje wiseman state. Without such trial and surmounting one doesn't hasn't true vision.
@TheEmptyBeing for where did I state such? All the wiseman reveal that the mind is what bondages a man, and too, the mind also is what may liberate them if they seek to understand such powers and are of discipline.
@@S3RAVA3LM All aboard the pretentious woo woo train. Do you realize you are the most ego driven poster on this channel? Well maybe you have some competition with the book seller.
the O true 😅😂😂😂
I doubted everyone and everything.
Know I understand why the brain is the morphology that it is.
I'm deep diving into the Parmenides(Taylor's translation) and Proclus diodachus commentary on this work - along with some other works that align with and contribute to this. Proclus commentary is basically the entirety of Platonics - and too can help one to further understand all the works attributed to Plato - and touches on the very Source(God), the Divine, the gods, principles, causes, all levels, degrees, theophanies, natures, relations, to the realm of phenomena and matter that is the lowest of levels.
Nobody is going to study this, it requires to much work, effort, yearning, commitement, and vision. My future is over, it's gone - dreams and hopes, burried, cry cry.
Most people just like to comment and aren't serious about inquiry. I comment only to get better at my grammar, conveying or construing very difficult concepts so succinct, too grasping the scope and limits of mind, working on antinomies, unserstanding words and meanings better, ultimately nomenclature - an unbelievable science.
It feels like a race against the clock for me.
Imagine getting reincarnated and having to start all over from square, but at -50 again, therefore spending half your life just to break even, to undo all the bs and injustice that was done to us; to break out of and free from our minds construct, and bias.
It doesn't get much more pretentious than this. In fact this would be a perfect example to use for the term
It's all domestication programming.
Perhaps my gas bill doesn't actually exist.
That's a comforting idea.
Theology. Its just some obscure study of old fiction. Safe to ignore.
No, it is not safe...
Thousands and thousands of lives all over this world have been victimized, NOT by the likes of Mother Theresa but by the likes of your Godless kind...
Agreed. But even as fiction, sometimes it's interesting to look at as the 'history of the evolution of human ideas'.
@@evaadam3635 Mother Theresa, who famously refused to allow her patients dying in agony to be given pain killers, because she said that their pain was "part of God's plan". Also, rather than spending the millions of dollars donated to her on improving her hospices, which remained threadbare slop houses, it all went on very nicely furnished convents.
You can ignore it if you want to. And you can study it if you want to. Different strokes.
@@simonhibbs887... I am not really shocked why a satan supporter can malign a saint... yes, of course, if you are given a choice between Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy whom you want to baby-sit your child, Ted Bundy would be your best pick, no doubt....
All theology, philosophy are outdated they very moment they come into existence.
Have you ever placed your idea and conception of theology and philosophy on trial. There's are reason those with eyes see not, and those with ears hear not, for all remains but a parable to them.
For scriptures and sacred texts are profound and concocted in the form of mysticism for a reason.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but are of an opinion that is not scrupulous or erudite.
There's an appropriate theology and philosophy for every time and place, and sometimes for every individual. The fact that there are places, people, and societies for whom they aren't of value doesn't mean they're broadly "outdated."
@robertsouth6971 no, everyone has to think the exact same way and have the exact same world view!