Can Anyone Save Descartes From the Cartesian Circle?

[Reverend Joe]

If you define noise as vibrations being registered by a human ear, it does not make a noise if nobody hears it. You are playing with definitions. Nothing wrong with that. Only science does not examine (or experiment with) words.

Scientists observe a phenomenon, they give it a name, try to describe it, explain it, test their explanation, etcetera. For all they care, the phenomenon may be called 'x'.

I'm not sure if we are understanding each other (if you are, then I am not.) What I am trying to point out is not how to play with definitions. I am trying to point out that Descartes' theories cannot be tested by science because thay are not science. Science and Descartes have two different fundamental backings, and thus they are incompatible. You cannot apply a Cartesian circle or the scientific method to ideas that do not recognise these fundamental principles. It is like trying to tell a computer to "go **** itself". It will come out in a failure, either because the response was read as incorrect, or because the computer will tell you it does not understand. You have to work with the computer for it to respond correctly. Likewise, Descartes does not work in science because he is fundamentally seperated from the ideas that science tries to use to prove him wrong. Do not be mistaken- I am not anti-science. I just don't think science has any place with Descartes. Either you follow him or you don't.

[Byzantine Prince]

The real question is what does science have to do with this discussion?

[Reverend Joe]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.

Also, why the Farcry engine?

[Byzantine Prince]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.

Need I go into my old tirades about how philosophy is far superior to science. If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken. There are ways in which philosophers can prove others wrong by using pure reason, which is distinct in philosophy and affects everything.



Descartes will always be one of the most important thinkers for his Cogito Ergo Sum theory. No one else had been able to pinpoint existence as precisely and correctly as Descartes.

[Soulforged]

Need I go into my old tirades about how philosophy is far superior to science. If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken. There are ways in which philosophers can prove others wrong by using pure reason, which is distinct in philosophy and affects everything.

Both are complementary. Not all phylosophy is based on metaphysical proportion, and not all science is based on empirism. I'll go as far as saying that science depends more on phylosophy than the other way, but in abstract both are equal to the other (that's in knowledge value).

[Reverend Joe]

If you think that Descartes was thinking and making up his own illogical rules you would be mistaken.

WHAT?! NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

I'm trying to prove that his system worked just as much as anyone else's- I am not saying anything about him making uo his own rules! If anything, I am trying to argue the exact opposite!

And yes, philosophy really contains a lot of boundless power, that is limited only by the knowledge of the man who is philosophising. But I can't understand why you think that I think that Descartes pulled all this stuff out of a hat. It's not wrong at all- it's just different.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

As far as the falling tree example is concerned, you don't have to be there to hear it. You can record the sound and even do a frequency analysis. This means that the falling of the tree does indeed produce a measurable effect.

[Reverend Joe]

As far as the falling tree example is concerned, you don't have to be there to hear it. You can record the sound and even do a frequency analysis. This means that the falling of the tree does indeed produce a measurable effect.

Ah, but are you hearing the noise, or a recording of the noise? And is not the frequency analyzer detecting the vibrations, and not actually hearing the noise? "Measurable effect" also falls in the realm of science. It does not work with the idea that noise is only that which is heard by someone or something that can speak about it- i.e. an intellegent being. This is outside of the scientific pathway, and onto another. It crosses onto the "Cogito Ergo Sum" idea created by Descartes.

[Kanamori]

And here it comes:
*drumroll*
Descartes obviously didn´t know the Far Cry engine!

You asked for it.

Unexpected direction is good.

[Kanamori]

I am trying to prove that Descartes does not have to be saved from the Cartesian circle because it works in his system. Can we really prove that anything that is proven wrong in the scientific system is actually wrong? No, because it is someone's construct. Follow it if you will; I usually follow the scientific construct myself. But it is a fundamental error to assume that this is true only because most people say it is, just as blind faith in god is wrong. You must consider the systems, and decide which suits you the best.

Descartes went to great lengths to avoid the circle logic he is accused of committing.

[Reverend Joe]

Descartes went to great lengths to avoid the circle logic he is accused of committing.

So what's the problem?