However, the effectiveness of his counter of the counterarguments is questionable, and he gives one reason for his position. Therefore, his overall argument is still at least adequate. Even though Hawking gives only one reason for his position, it doesn’t take away from the effectiveness of his argument too much, because this is a philosophical topic, one which it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to use evidence in its claim. The most one can do is give their reasoning, and defend it against possible counter-arguments using logic and facts, which is exactly what Hawking does. The first problem Hawking addresses is whether a set of equations can predict the details of everyday life.
I will argue that Aristotle’s materialist approach to the body-soul distinction is a more coherent explanation on the soul, Descartes may have attacked Aristotle’s assertion, based on his argument from doubt- if the soul is simply a component of the body, then it’s existence can be doubted, rendering it effectively corporeal, and therefore not the metaphysical entity which Descartes believed it to be. Plato believed the soul was more important than the body as the body is part of the empirical world and subject to change. As he believed the senses were an unreliable guide for Plato it was the soul that enables us to have true knowledge. He described the soul as ‘simple’ meaning it cannot be split into parts and is unchanging, this allows it to have knowledge of other simple concepts i.e: the Forms. Bodily desires and spirited passions, Plato argued, are like two horses pulling a chariot which has to be controlled by reason.
Religious wisdom cannot be tested empirically, but is, rather, based upon mystic philosophies. Scientific wisdom is likewise connected to the elements of nature, but modern scientists attempt to reduce these elements into a set of mathematical postulates through mental reasoning. When comparing Mengzi’s Confucian works and Crawford’s work on manual labor, these three types of wisdom were used as a basis for evaluation. The engagement in ritual and the act of workmanship both cultivate similar, if not the same type of wisdom. Throughout Mengzi’s reasoning, he consistently refers to wisdom.
But, to what extent are logic and reasoning used to explain beliefs? Logic and reasoning is one way of acquiring knowledge; other ways of knowing are sensory perception, language and emotions. Knowledge is justified true belief backed by scientific evidence while belief is baseless usually rooted in religion, culture, or personal experience. In natural and human sciences, knowledge is gained by using the scientific method, falsifying an existing theory; however the knowledge obtained may collide with the personal beliefs of a researcher. Sometimes, arguments are a constructive way of acquiring knowledge particularly those which are based on logic and facts.
This is shown in many psychology studies where the researchers chose an observational approach because quantitative data does not provide the context and meaning needed to truly understand the scientific issue. Other times, these psychologists use interviews as another method of further understanding the topic; interviews are another example of a strategy that provides results that algebraic formulas simply cannot produce. All in all, since mathematics is not the only factor in the understanding of science, the knower cannot support the claim that mathematics is the “key to understanding science” because the word “key” has the denotation of being “the only thing that provides the means of gaining access to or understanding
The difficulty with holding this view is that this idea of the soul is not an entirely fair one. He appears to want to miscategorise this ‘essence' as some mysterious substance. Firstly he uses the OED and not the philosophical encyclopaedia for his definition which lack technical accuracy. This undermines the credibility of his starting assumption. Secondly Dawkins' view of the world is limited a priori.
For example, by studying philosophy we can get a better understanding out of some abstract ideas that are non physical such as democracy which is based on the natural law, or religions. Another misconception about philosophy is that many of us think studying philosophy is a waste of time and worthless. However, when we learn that
The second defines knowledge in more philosophical terms, “true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion”. But neither of these definitions capture how it is that a society changes over time or through different cultures, the way that it approaches knowledge. We approach this concept of “wisdom” and “knowing” in many different ways. These “approaches” are called ways of knowing. The ways of knowing in which I am familiar with are sense perception, reason, emotion, and language.
This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect. In other words, induction involves moving “from premises about objects we have examined to a conclusion about objects we haven’t examined” (Okasha, 2002, p. 19). From this statement it is apparent how induction can be a problem in science due to it’s potential to lead to a false conclusion. Another problem with induction in scientific reasoning is that induction only generalizes what has already occurred. It classifies patterns that have already happened and deems them to be true even though future occurrences may be uncertain.
Finally, values emerge from science, both as a product and process, and may be redistributed more broadly in the culture or society. Also, scientific discoveries may pose new social challenges about values, though the values themselves may be conventional. Several questions help guide disciplined inquiry into ethics and values. 1. Introduction A fundamental feature of science, as conceived by most scientists, is that it deals with facts, not values.