> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.
What if scientists don't understand reason? Do they see science is subject to reason, considering that the matter of science is something of which can only be described through a reasoning process? There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.
It is also interesting to see the continual replication nature of philosophical mistakes, even though they have been refuted by decades. The author confuses vaccine for polio as a scientific breakthrough, where that's just the effect. The scientific breakthrough is the study of pathology, which only happens in a total abstract world (the definition of science) -- that's _the_ cause. It's like proclaiming the end of murder just by enacting a law stating murder is over. Reminds me of the mistakes made by Comte's positivism (or Bush's "Mission Accomplished"), the obvious Kant confusion (form over matter), and, why not?, the devilish conclusions made by Heidegger (won't describe them here on purpose and would love to hear otherwise).
Yes, the scientific method is a specific kind of probabilistic reasoning that works remarkably well in practice: you make a guess about how the world works, you design an experiment, and either reject the theory or not. You can only reject a theory, but never confirm it with absolute certainty. Theories that disagree with experiment are rubbish. Theories that pass the test of many experiments are believed to be true only with very high probability. Theories that can't be tested are outside the realm of science.
Which means that as a scientist (aka natural philosopher) one must take _as a given_ that:
* Happenings that are observed in the external world are related (cause and effect exist)
* The principle of sufficient reason applies to all effects (there must be a cause sufficient to explain the effects in all cases)
* Everything is not unique (there are categories and kinds - "all chairs" is a valid statement describing something that exists in reality)
* What is observed is related to reality (the external world is knowable)
There's much more that a natural philosopher must take for granted, just as there are many physical facts that biology takes for granted. One cannot prove these using the scientific method, because the scientific method presupposes these principles.
It’s nice to see this modern realization of something well documented and prescribed in philosophy for 1600 years. In Arabic, the origin of the word “human” means “one who forgets”.
to be clear, I don't speak Arabic - I'm merely intrigued by etymology.
I think they are referring to "إنسان" or "Insaan" which has the root of nisyah which means "to forget".
My understanding is that this isn't the common word for person, which would be "شخص" or shakhs. However that also doesn't originate from the word for earth. What word are you referring too?
I think that your parent commenter looked up the etymology of the English word 'human', which comes from humus (earth).
I think they read the grandparent post as suggesting that the English word 'human' came from Arabic, rather than your (correct) inference that they meant the Arabic word for human.
It's from the name of the first human "Adam", which comes from the word for earth. And I thought that was the origin of the word that means human in Arabic.
But another poster said there are multiple words for human in Arabic, so now I'm not sure.
The root of "human" إنسان (insaan) is ء ن س (ʾ-n-s)
The root of "forget" إنس (insa) is ن س ي (n-s-y)
Not the same root.
The word templates and roots are different, but the combination root1+template1 happens to look identical to root2+template2. (each arabic word is a 3-letter root + assigned into a large n-letter word template)
insa is the second-person masculine singular active imperative of نَسِيَ (nasiya), equivalent to the command "forget!" in english, addressed to male.
I think I found the root of this rumor [3] (some religious mumbo jumbo):
"In Egyptian Arabic, the word 'insan' means 'human'. If we remove the 'n', the word becomes 'insa', which means 'to forget'. So you see, the word 'forget' is taken from the word 'human'. And since it was God who created our minds and hearts, He knew from the very beginning that we would quickly forget our history"
Arabic speaker here, just want to point out that there are multiple words for human in Arabic: "بن/بنت أدم" (son/daughter of Adam), "بشري" and also "إنسان".
You probably searched for the one related to Adam, and the parent's claim concerns the third one (I still couldn't verify the claim with a 30 second search, but it's plausible enough and the word does seem phonetically similar to the verb, which counts for something in Arabic).
And that’s the fate of the modern man: to look at a planet called Venus and see a gender, instead of asking why or trying to figure out how we came to that conclusion. By investigating that, one could easily understand also why it is inhabitable.
May be hard to ingest, but I suggest the Treatise of the Sphere to begin with.
> Look, it’s our beautiful friend Venus. Contrary to popular belief, Venus is not our “sister,” and it does not have a gender. Neither does Mars. Actually, they are just rocky bodies surrounded by gas, in orbit around the Sun!
Let’s throw 2400 years of knowledge in symbolism and philosophy in the trash and yay Descartes, Heiddegger and Kant!
Funny anecdote: Foucault raised this issue because he didn't his intimate preferences to be made public. Now, on creating a whole theory on top of that...
If you have dependents, DO NOT listen to "hang tight and figure out your life" kind of advices; your dependents comes first, you no longer own your life.
1. Reach out to friends in the industry and former colleagues
2. Meanwhile, apply to jobs in LinkedIn (this is for FAANGs)
3. Stack Overflow has a good job board
4. Look for almost-FAANG tech companies, such as NVIDIA, HP, Dell, etc.
5. Consider moving -- Denver, Boise, Austin, etc. Industry is booming in these cities.
> Despite this limitation, the Nanoprocessor powered numerous Hewlett-Packard devices ranging from interface boards and voltmeters to spectrum analyzers and data capture terminals.4 The Nanoprocessor's key feature was its low cost and high speed: Compared against the contemporary Motorola 6800,7 the Nanoprocessor cost $15 instead of $360 and was an order of magnitude faster for control tasks.
What if scientists don't understand reason? Do they see science is subject to reason, considering that the matter of science is something of which can only be described through a reasoning process? There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.
It is also interesting to see the continual replication nature of philosophical mistakes, even though they have been refuted by decades. The author confuses vaccine for polio as a scientific breakthrough, where that's just the effect. The scientific breakthrough is the study of pathology, which only happens in a total abstract world (the definition of science) -- that's _the_ cause. It's like proclaiming the end of murder just by enacting a law stating murder is over. Reminds me of the mistakes made by Comte's positivism (or Bush's "Mission Accomplished"), the obvious Kant confusion (form over matter), and, why not?, the devilish conclusions made by Heidegger (won't describe them here on purpose and would love to hear otherwise).