Philosophy - Philosopy versus Science - What is Philosophy

[DTLarca]

Rain being mostly water is deemed wet ... rain water is H2O, rain water was the substance in question. ... nothing else.
you are trying to deviate from the specifics by throwing in complexities to the discussion. You're creating a smoke screen to avoid the point and I guess to create confusion for your own advantage.

As I've said before, Nevgee, you are cynical. You want to try be a little more skeptical - you're almost there.

I promise - I am talking about rain water. I promise - there is no smoke screen - no conspiracy.

Seriously, simple question, is rain water always wet?

[TRASH101]

Well I, for one, do enjoy reading your posts DTLarca and hope there is yet more to come.

With your "rain example" the lack of definitive parameters makes it false but could be remedied by a controlled environment.

Isn't that what engineering is?

[DTLarca]

Well I, for one, do enjoy reading your posts DTLarca and hope there is yet more to come.

With your "rain example" the lack of definitive parameters makes it false but could be remedied by a controlled environment.

Isn't that what engineering is?

There very possibly is more too come - glad you assume such a relaxed or prejudice free view on it

To answer the question "What is engineering?" you are forced to philosophise - that is if the answer will be in a synthetic form or a contingent form i.e. made up of more than one concept taken from the world. If instead you are arbitrarily defining the word "engineering" then you are building a concept, predicate, into the word itself and thus would actually not be saying anything interesting about the world. From the synthetic point of view - the question can not be answered any other way but by philosophising. And so if you want the right answer then you must care that your philosophising system works otherwise good info in but garbage out

The parameters in the rain example are set in stone with the base proposition which is "If it is raining then the road(s) will be yet". In other words the roads have been inspected and have been found to be of such a nature that they cannot possibly stay dry if it rains straight down from above the road.

[taz24]

As I've said before, Nevgee, you are cynical. You want to try be a little more skeptical - you're almost there.

I promise - I am talking about rain water. I promise - there is no smoke screen - no conspiracy.

Seriously, simple question, is rain water always wet?

If you ask a simple question like "is rain always wet"? There could be more than one answer, could there not?

1 Yes rain water is always wet
2 No rain water in never wet
3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

You may have to define wet and rain water...

I like debates like this. A bit heavy maybe but ok as long as you include humour.

Life without humour is no life (don't coment on that its too deep).

taz

.

[DTLarca]

If you ask a simple question like "is rain always wet"? There could be more than one answer, could there not?

1 Yes rain water is always wet
2 No rain water in never wet
3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

You may have to define wet and rain water...

I like debates like this. A bit heavy maybe but ok as long as you include humour.

Life without humour is no life (don't coment on that its too deep).

taz

.

2 No rain water is never wet

Is 2 really a possible answer? It might be if we were talking of matters that were contingent. But we are talking about definitions of stuff out their in the world - as in what is predicated of stuff in the world but in definitional form such that the predicate is embedded within the word of which we are discussing its definition.


3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

These two options are the same option - if you have one then you must have the other. The one is just another way to express the other. So in the end we still only have two options which are 1 and (3 or 4 or both).

[cool runings]

2 No rain water is never wet

Is 2 really a possible answer? It might be if we were talking of matters that were contingent. But we are talking about definitions of stuff out their in the world - as in what is predicated of stuff in the world but in definitional form such that the predicate is embedded within the word of which we are discussing its definition.


3 Rain water is somtimes wet
4 Rain water is somtimes not wet

These two options are the same option - if you have one then you must have the other. The one is just another way to express the other. So in the end we still only have two options which are 1 and (3 or 4 or both).

I did not claim it was right or correct but I used your earlier comment about what is logical.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet – Good argument – Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining – Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method – Denying the consequent.

These are statements.

They may be correct or incorrect but they are statements.

So when I ask if
Rain is sometimes wet
Rain is sometimes not wet

Could that not indicate that Rain could be dry??

By what standard are you claiming rain is wet, therfore saying any road with rain on it must be wet??

I'm not saying you are wrong, but when you make a statement of fact then that fact has to be proveable.

How can we prove rain is wet?
Is snow wet? or dry if snow is dry is it not rain?
Is mist not rain, just in very fine droplets?

coolrunnings

.

[DTLarca]

I did not claim it was right or correct but I used your earlier comment about what is logical.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet – Good argument – Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining – Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method – Denying the consequent.

These are statements.

They may be correct or incorrect but they are statements.

So when I ask if
Rain is sometimes wet
Rain is sometimes not wet

Could that not indicate that Rain could be dry??

By what standard are you claiming rain is wet, therfore saying any road with rain on it must be wet??

I'm not saying you are wrong, but when you make a statement of fact then that fact has to be proveable.

How can we prove rain is wet?
Is snow wet? or dry if snow is dry is it not rain?
Is mist not rain, just in very fine droplets?

coolrunnings

.

You are missing my point.

Analytic statements are statements true by virtue of their meaning alone. To know whether they are true or not we do not need to go out into the world to test every instance to see if the truth is universal. We only have to analyse the terms hence "analytic" statement. A bachelor is an unmarried man. You do not have to go out into the world and check every unmarried man to determine whether he is also a bachelor. They all just are bachelors by virtue of the meaning of the term itself.

Wet just means "has water on it" or "has water in it" or "is in water" etc.

A triangle has three sides, water is wet and bachelors are unmarried men are all analytic statements.

[cool runings]

You are missing my point.

Analytic statements are statements true by virtue of their meaning alone. To know whether they are true or not we do not need to go out into the world to test every instance to see if the truth is universal. We only have to analyse the terms hence "analytic" statement. A bachelor is an unmarried man. You do not have to go out into the world and check every unmarried man to determine whether he is also a bachelor. They all just are bachelors by virtue of the meaning of the term itself.

Wet just means "has water on it" or "has water in it" or "is in water" etc.

A triangle has three sides, water is wet and bachelors are unmarried men are all analytic statements.

But there you go ....

By using words you you prove words can be used as a tool.

Words and lagauge might be wrong??

Take a known.
Absolute Zero. What is absolute zero? It is ameasure of 0 deg K but what if tommorow I invent a machine that can pull 10 units lower than Absolute Zero.

Does that mean Absolute Zero is wrong or our defination of it??

All reasoning and all argument must surely be debateable????

All the best

coolrunnings

.