In the process of advancing science we almost always lead with the introduction of new "forms". It is those assertions that lead to either the confirmation or rejection, through physical verification, of those ideas. That is what leads most people to believe that "forms" are only nominally true. This is why I hoped Fooloso4 would weigh in on Plato's assertions that "forms" may actually be more fundamental.Belindi wrote: ↑October 18th, 2018, 10:36 amBig Bango wrote:
"Just as we did with the spread of disease" was a new paradigm. The paradigm that preceded the germ theory of disease was the miasma theory of disease. Each of those theories was within the materialist (physicalist)theory of existence.The problem with science is that its hard empirical proofs are based on the use of instruments made only of the kind of matter that we are already familiar with, visible electromagnetically active matter, yet we know that is only 10% of the mass of the universe. For that reason, we must broaden our methods by introducing "forms" that are not just imagined but are derived from our knowledge of reality and might be true at lower "fractal" levels of the world. (see my topic "The fractal evolution of the universe". Once one has a good idea of what might be present within cells, to account for the behavior of molecules within the cells, then one can do the hard work of discovery just as we did with the spread of disease.
By contrast if we introduce " "forms" that are not just imagined but are derived from our knowledge of reality" we'd be thinking outwith the materialist(physicalist) theory of existence.Reality is what we seek to find when we do science, and it would be unproductive to rely upon any theory unless there was also empirical evidence. Fractal levels of the world are not evidence.
I'm not against leaps of fantasy. I do however trust current science more than I trust science fiction.
In today's world philosophy has to resume its place of dominance over science that it has historically had. You may ask why? The answer is that science has become stuck in a method of empirical verification that only applies to visible matter which is only 10% of the mass of the universe. Do we philosophers have to also be limited by those narrowly limited restraints? No, we have to lead science into broader conceptions of reality that can also expand their castrated methods.
To say Belindi that "Fractal levels of the world are not evidence" may be true but to acknowledge its structure is simply meant to guide our inquiry.