In the article “The Big One” Berkeley seismologist Robert Nadeau states “ A lot of randomness is lack of knowledge.” In this statement the word randomness is referring to earthquakes meaning we only have a small knowledge about the science of this activity. Nadeau uses this statement to convince us to realise that earthquakes cannot truly be predicted, in reality the only resource we have is presumptions. Scientists prove that we do not have enough of the necessary tools needed to produce the correct idea of when an earthquake is actually going to occur. The problem is that scientists didn 't know how earthquakes and faults had anything to do with each other until after the San Francisco earthquake on April 17,1906. Since then scientist have move past that.
Yet, technological output surely way different than genuine minds based on the three mental states: physicalism, dualism, and idealism. In other words, the chance of computers to pass the Turing test is roundly zero. In contrast, some philosophers argued that some biological organism carry ‘mind’ without brains, and technology able
If there are no events, then there is no time. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces this idea by saying, “For, the thinking goes, if there could be a period of time without change, then it follows that time could exist without any events to fill it; but if, on the other hand, there could not be a period of time without change, then it must
Hume’s argument against induction is that “only meaningful propositions are relations of idea and matter of fact”. This meaning that the claim must be priori or a posteriori. However, Hume contradicts himself because his own argument does not meet his own criteria of a meaningful proposition. This is because his statement is not a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. The grue-problem is almost like predicting what will happen in the future based on what happened in the past.
“I think therefore I am” is not a reference to self-awareness, and certainly not artificial intelligence, but the simple fact of existence: I can’t be having the thought I’m having now if I don’t exist somewhere, in some form. Descartes had a pre-digital understanding of a simulation, arguing that he could well be a “brain in a vat” being fed false experiences. But the basic form of the problem is the same as our computer interpretation, though less specific and
It has two possible solutions. One solution considers that intelligent extraterrestrials do not exist, and the other solution considers a variety of hypotheses that consider that intelligent extraterrestrials do exist, but there is a reason beyond the lack of evidence. Physicists Michael Hart and Frank Tipler argue for the lack of intelligent extraterrestrial life, claiming that they are nonexistent in the galaxy and/or universe and all other reasonings for the lack of evidence regarding their existence are inaccurate. Other hypotheses suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist and their is an explanation for the lack of evidence. The Zoo Theory claims that intellectual extraterrestrials do not want their presence be known to humanity and that humanity lives in a somewhat zoo like environment that “they” observe.
This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error
Many theories come into formulations due to different scientific interests, but it is of no consequence as far as the philosophy is concerned. What Popper emphasizes in particular that there is no single way or method such as induction that leads to the path of scientific theory. The non- scientific theories like of Freud, Marx and Adler are thus, called so-scientific in nature because of their weakness of explaining everything under the sun. And if they explain anything under the sun then falsifiability in their case can never occur, and if they can never be falsified then they are not science in true sense. On Popper’s idea of falsification as criterion of problem of demarcation physics, chemistry and psychology are sciences, psycho- analysis is a pre-science, i.e., it contains some really insightful truths, but until it is not falsifiable it cannot be accepted as science, astrology and phrenology are pseudo- sciences.
Dakarai Bishop Professor Leib PHI 2010 1 March 2018 Essay 2 During the Middle Ages, the proof of God was a question that many philosophers of that time tried to answer. Despite many individuals already believing in God, the philosophers still wanted to answer the question of “does God exist”. A principle called Ockham’s Razor, which was developed by William of Ockham, was used by many of these empiricist philosophers to challenge or align with the arguments regarding the proof of God’s existence. This question still lingers with the philosophers of today, and it most likely will for some time in the future. In this paper, I will explain what Ockham’s Razor is and the perception of it from many empiricists, the Ontological and Cosmological
Therefore like what is written in theconversation.com, even after scientific theories are propagated into laws, new methods from new experiments will always be discovered which can always challenge them as long as one continues to doubt. The question now is, can science actually prove anything? According to American theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” In science all ideas are “just” mere
This experiment is a prime example of one of the main components of liberty in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. While Asche’s experiment poses questions based upon (supposedly) irrefutable mathematical facts, its surprising results reveal that a majority opinion is not necessarily the truth, and that “if opponents of all-important truths do not exist,” then society will never be able to progress (Mill 36). This means that no matter an individual’s
This theory rejects the plausibility of premise 3 of Paley’s argument. As mentioned, the third premise of Paley’s argument states that random natural processes never, or almost never produce things with such complexity as a watch. Darwin 's theory indicates how random processes could, after some time, produce things with the designer’s imprint. He also noted in his autobiography that he disagrees with Paley’s conclusion: “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered” (Darwin 431). However, Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t completely reject God’s existence, since it doesn’t destroy every version of the design argument.