So you're saying it is meaningful but not true.
-
-
He's not wrong. I believe in science. The discussing you and I are having isn't scientific but philosophical, yet it's still a question of evidence, but not scientific evidence. And we are concerned with agreeing or disagreeing not about what is meaningful but about what is true.
-
I really can't put my position across any more clearly than I have. You can either address it clearly as it is or not. You have chosen not and I have things to do.
-
It's true that science is based on evidence. But there are other kinds of evidence than just scientific. Philosophical argument, for example, is based on other kinds of evidence. Philosophical arguments still concern questions of truth and evidence, but in fields outside science.
-
I don't know what 'other kinds of evidence than just scientific' means. Science is a methodology based on evidence. Other fields like history also rely on evidence but may not be considered science. If your philosophy relies on evidence, good. We have no disagreement.
-
If one says that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence, then philosophy is just a part of science. But if we say that philosophy works with forms of evidence not limited to scientific evidence, then the use of evidence is not itself sufficient to distinguish science.
-
I'm still not sure you're saying anything. Please get to the point of explaining what you mean in clear terms with examples rather than vague abstractions or let me get back to work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.