Reply To: Ethical and legal question about CSS and JS codes.

[nixnerd]

I think this forum is proving one thing: Hard sciences and philosophy are and always will be at odds. Period. One approaches reality with the preconceived notion that we can know. One approaches reality by asking the more fundamental question: what can we know?

In order to research anything, you are at the mercy of your senses. Your senses are arguably relative to you and you alone. Even if the evidence is very strong that other people perceive what you perceive… you can never know. This goes back to the question you asked as a kid: “How do I know the red you see is the red I see?” The short answer is: you don’t.

I have seen many photographs of Egypt. I’ve seen pictures of the pyramids and the Sphinx and King Tut’s tomb. But guess what? I’ve never been to Egypt. I can reasonably suspect that Egypt exists. But I don’t know it exists. I’ve never seen it. Even if I had, how do I know I can trust my senses? After all, at least a few times in my life, I’ve thought I saw something that I didn’t. How can I ever fully trust a faculty that has proven itself to be wrong at best and deceptive at worst? Doing so will ALWAYS require some degree of faith and trust.

There are several philosophers from several schools of thought who question human senses and perception. Hume’s critique of the “Scientific Method” and Descartes’ “Cogito Ergo Sum” both do this.

Two philosophers from two COMPLETELY different camps can agree on one thing: Human senses/perspectives are fundamentally flawed.

Here’s a fun exercise: Forget proving whether or not God exists. Try to sufficiently prove to anyone that you exist.

*Edit: In reference to Descartes, I should say “the dialogue leading up to his conclusion of the ‘Cogito Ergo Sum.'” Since, in the end, he does conclude that he can know at least one thing. However… that was called into question by Nietzsche.