This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Rafael patropi

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rafael patropi

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Real name: Rafael Patropi

Rafael patropi's Activity

  1. Rafael patropi added a question in Help   

    Leibniz - the new system
    hello, everyone...

    well, i a need help in a question:

    what Leibniz means at the second paragraph of their new system, when he says:

    what is that force????

    thank you
    • 1 reply
  2. Rafael patropi added an answer to a question Science is a religion?   

    Karl Popper, the conference selected for "in search of a better world" (I do not know if the English version have that name), does not seem to be very strict in their attempt to "demote" science. But anyway, I'll look for these books as soon as possible because I want to start my philosophy course next year.

    And sorry for my spelling errors.
    • 0
  3. Rafael patropi added an answer to a question Science is a religion?   

    the reason why I made such questionamentes is because they came soon as I read this article. Respond them saying that I should read more (of my homework) does not help me, nor my questions become less deserving of answers - though I thank the hint and recognize my lack of expertise. Moreover, it seems to me a way of saying that I do not possess the minimum knowledge needed to wage a discussion with "those who read Kunh", thus creating an environment of confabulation of those share the same opnion and expels those who disagree, reducing Board meeting a banal people who speak the same things, in different ways, rather than lead to a synthesis encouraged by mutual and constructive criticism. What hurts and contradicts the philosophy of Popper himself, that we should be completely open to criticism and ready to encourage ourselves to get closest to the truth. we need to stop behave ourselves like lawyers! haha

    we must content ourselves with the knowledge conjectural. both science and religion are sets of assumptions. or rather: Representations of fact, such as a map is a representation of a place. Among these two representations, I believe that a set of testable conjectures (science) plus an error correction method is the safest way to achieve the most accurate representation. In short, you'd better put it this way: "the set of dogmas which we choose so that we can apply a metode error correction and minimize the amount of erroneous conclusions?"

    I did not mean that science evolves gradually toward truth. I know there were times when some paradigms shattered. But what I meant earlier is that the new paradigm created to support the new scientific view is, by definition, scientific, supported by scientists and very different from anything derived from visions, scriptures or so. Accordingly, in this sense that I mentioned, science is refuted by science.

    this is not the kind of rhetoric that I expect to find in someone who is trying to convince me that knowledge can not be obtained through a general formula. Indeed, it is precisely the kind of rhetoric that I expect to find in someone who has no doubt that is right. but maybe I'm wrong, so I will read them as soon as possible.
    • 0
  4. Rafael patropi added an answer to a question Science is a religion?   

    in how it is taught, I agree. And this can be justified by the fact that it would be impossible to experience all statements in a science classroom.
    but about how it is understood, it can be said that it is understood as a religion?

    They are two belief systems based on a set of axioms, right? One of them, science, has such inferences derived from axioms and which can be verified and tested, the other has inferences that require as much faith as requiring its own axioms, ie, all its conclusions are sustained by faith.

    Yes, it does frequently. The argument that it does not do is based on tendentious observation that only takes into account the examples where it has not refuted, because, in cases where it did, they began to incorporate science. That is, is the result of bias that arises when we look only for things it has not refuted and concluded: "Well, it seems that science did not refute anything."

    Every time that any kind of mysticism found itself worthy to opine about the functioning of the natural world, science readily confirmed the case (rarely), refuted, or classified it as not concluded.
    • 0
  5. Rafael patropi added an answer to a question Science is a religion?   

    Says dogma as meaning axiom? Then, because the axioms science is a religion? But the level of faith required to believe the science is not negligible near the other religions? What could we have without axioms?

    And more,
    it is not certain that science can only be refuted by science? Or rather, all the great theories that have fallen in reality were not supplanted by other scientific theories and not by any other type of statement?

    Thank you.
    • 0
  6. Rafael patropi added a question in Help   

    Science is a religion?
    Science is a religion?

    In the article “How To Defend Society Against Science”, Paul Feyerabend says that science is a religion because the science is taught through dogmas, and not as it should be, that is, through critical analysis and skepticism. Is this true? What are the examples of scientific authoritarianism these days?

    Thank you. Excuse me if I have written something wrong. My English is terrible.
    • 10 replies