[quote author=“sotoman”]these are all perceived by the senses through secientific instruments and bones.
you can see quarks with instruments, you can see fossils that show evolution, and the history of ancient greece has written records and artifacts. the first stirrings of life on earth has some empirical evidence that leads scientists to this conclusion. none of these are made up out of the imagination.
these are all percieved by the senses of the people who study them, etc. very clearly, all these examples exist, since someone, somewhere has seen them.
What we see are the blinking lights on the instrument panels. What we see are rocks in the shapes of bones, and yellowed manuscripts. We infer from this evidence that quarks exist, or dinosaurs existed, or ancient Greece existed. Inference is necessary.
[quote author=“sotoman”]Locke’s criterion is not too restrictive at all! all he is saying is that if something doesnt have a physical body, and cannot be measured by any instrument, then it does not exist. i challenge anyone to prove that something exists which cant be observed or measured in any way. this is precisely what theists are claiming, and what Locke was trying to abolish.
if something cant be measured or observed, Locke said, then there is no reason at all to believe it is real!
It’s an inference to go from sense perception to measuring by instruments. Clearly, if we can’t give physical evidence that something exists, we shouldn’t believe it.
[quote author=“sotoman”]we are not metaphysical beings, we are physical beings. we have bodies.
Metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
this means that any metaphysical argument is based on subjectivity- opinion, feelings, etc- and not logical. and Locke would say, that since nothing metapyisical can be observed thru objective studies, then nothing metaphysical is real.
Ontology studies conceptions of reality, which can be different for everyone. how can this be logical if it can mean anything?
Well, I’m afraid this is quite confused, sotoman. Saying “we are physical beings” is a metaphysical claim. It is, in fact, an ontological claim about the nature of the stuff in the universe: viz., that it is physical stuff.
... and yet this conclusion is reached by “objective studies of material reality”, so it can’t be that “metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached by objective studies of material reality” as you claimed. Science is an investigation into the metaphysical reality of our universe.
[quote author=“sotoman”]the term ‘reasonable’ is one that i wouldnt use in a logical discussion, its way too flexible and can mean almost anything.
Well, it often happens that just saying “so and so is reasonable” doesn’t help advance the discussion. Then you will have to say why it is that you find so and so reasonable. What is the argument for so and so?
But other times (like in the discussion of certain religious issues) everyone agrees that it’s more reasonable to assume that the Bible isn’t literally true, and yet your opponent may believe his religious stuff on faith, i.e. in conscious opposition to reason. Then it seems perfectly OK to say “what you believe is unreasonable”. However, it is always better to give an argument for why it is unreasonable rather than just to say so.