Randolpin

That is in the quantum scale which is the scale of the small. Our lives are inclined and perceive the large scale (Universe, galaxies).For me, I think we should not apply what is in the quantum level to the activities in large scale because they are different. The fact that quantum mechanics is different from large scale doesn't remove the absolute truth that exist in the large scale because we ourselves experience it. Even if we consider that q.m eliminates absolute truth, there is still absolute truth. The absolute truth of quantum mechanics itself. Me, you, all of us perceive that q.m is uncertain and very different from classical mechanics.

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples. Another example is our surroundings. Do you think that it just your own subjective view that the moon is round and other see it as square. Obviously not. All of us see the shape, the structure of the world the same way. Therefore there is absolute truth or objective truth. The truth which is valid in all times and all places. The moon is round for you, for me and for all humans who see it. The moon is round in Asia, Europe,Americas etc. for those who see it. Therefore, there is an absolute truth. In this case, we can't apply the philosophy of relativism because obviously it is not compatible. In this idea, we see that base on facts or evidences in the surroundings, we see that, really, there are correct and incorrect philosophies.

Please excuse my philosophical knowledge in the past weeks in this forum. This forum helps me clarify what is philosophy. This enables me now to share my idea about philosophy. Philosophy as what someone said here, is neither correct nor wrong. But my idea is that, there are correct & wrong philosophies. Example of correct philosophy I want to assert is Universalism and example of wrong philosophy is Relativism. Let me explain why the first is correct contrary to the last mentioned philosophy. Universalism is correct because base on my understanding, there is what we call absolute truth of reality.According to wikipedia, when we say absolute truth, this is the truth which is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. Examples of this absolute truth are mathematics, natural rights etc. This leads me to the conclusion that philosophy is important because it seeks the absolute truth provided that we speculate soundly, interpret facts properly and so we have the correct philosophy.IMO, some philosophies are wrong because some philosophers wrongly speculate and interpret facts.

So philosophy is just like speculation? An assertion on how we look reality? Is that what you mean? But philosophy could be correct also, when for example it based it's premise in a solid-ground of premises. Science could act the same way. Science look reality by creating models of it. Philosophy look reality by speculation. The difference between them is that science create model thru evidences or observation while philosophy is merely on speculation. But philosophy could also start it's premise based on already established facts of reality. So it's premise is valid and as a result, we arrive at correct conclusion. Let me give a sample argument. 1. Everything that exist must have an explanation for it's existence. The validity of this premise is based on what we observe in our surroundings. Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build,plant's exist in a specific place because it adapts the place. So we see that all that exist must have an explanation why they exist. So philosophy will soundly create the next premise that: 2. The universe exist. Therefore it must have a reason or explanation why it exist. Although science don't know yet that there must be a reason, philosophy already knows that there must be a reason, and it could be right because the premise 1 is valid.

Philosophy uses the right & valid premises supported by the evidences found in nature. We can't call it philosophy if the philosophical argument's premise is not valid. This is my point.

Strange posted: Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points. So how about this: 1+1= 2 The logic is that if you add 1 & 1 the result is always 2 which is always correct. In your argument: 1. All animals have four legs 2. Socrates is an animal 3. Therefore Socrates has four legs. Premise 1 is false because not all animals are 4-legged so since socrates is an animal is still valid.

How can you say that it is not logic based? If it is not logic based, why it is important? Why many philosophers are engaged in philosophy? If it is not logic based, they are only wasting time..

What I really mean by "more advance" is that, philosophy advances and tackle an idea where science not yet can't. Strange posted: There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not. Philosophy is logic-based so how can we say that it might be incorrect?

First, I don't mean that "making stuff" count as philosophy. As I understand, philosophy requires logic to operate. So, philosophy is more on logic while science is also requires logic but with evidences also. I hope this makes clear to you. I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy. I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy.

I don't really say that philosophy and science are different. I only point out the difference on their uses. Let me clarify it. Philosophy advances beyond what can be perceived by our perceptions unlike science which relies on evidences. I'm talking here not the general sscience but physics, biology etc.

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality. I will expound it thru questions: 1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)? 2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science. 3. Is philosophy as accurate as science? 4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?). I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you...