IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:13 PM   #1321
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If you don't care about these opinions being at least broadly based on facts, so be it. I care.
Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts. As evidence to this, there have been no agreements/clarifications on what the terms mean or refer to.

Last edited by LarryS; 2nd July 2021 at 12:15 PM.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:13 PM   #1322
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts.
And stuff like this is why people saying I'm either being mean to or scared of philosophy makes me laugh.

When we can have one, just one philosophy discussing without this kind of gibberish, I'll maybe consider starting to think about caring about what philosophy has to say about the world.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 2nd July 2021 at 12:16 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:18 PM   #1323
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
It’s not a matter of correct or incorrect, folks are expressing opinions

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If you don't care about these opinions being at least broadly based on facts, so be it. I care.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That.

And Chanakya that's a better answer then I could give to your question of clarifying my point as well.

That not all opinions are equivalent, as LarryS seems to be saying? That at least in some cases --- and I'd say this discussion, not as the OP started out, but as the thread has transpired --- does admit of some correct opinions, and some not so much, and that the point is to arrive at the correct opinions?

If that's what you were meaning to convey, then I agree with that.

Except I still don't see how that ties in with civility, which was the term you brought in, and in which context you brought in this argument.

(It's okay, not to beat this to death. This is clearly off-topic, and I don't mind dropping this if you don't want to be drawn in. But if you wish to explain in fuller detail, do go ahead.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:20 PM   #1324
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That not all opinions are equivalent, as LarryS seems to be saying? That at least in some cases --- and I'd say this discussion, not as the OP started out, but as the thread has transpired --- does admit of some correct opinions, and some not so much, and that the point is to arrive at the correct opinions?

If that's what you were meaning to convey, then I agree with that.

Except I still don't see how that ties in with civility, which was the term you brought in, and in which context you brought in this argument.

(It's okay, not to beat this to death. This is clearly off-topic, and I don't mind dropping this if you don't want to be drawn in. But if you wish to explain in fuller detail, do go ahead.)
I'm not going down some death spiral of "Mathematically define the exact level of 'correctness' an opinion has to have..." sort of thing.

A methodology which never, by it's own design and definition, advances beyond "Think about stuff really hard" is dangerous, anti-intellectual nonsense and I'm done explaining why I oppose it.

The "Well if you hate philosophy why are you in the discussion / why not just ignore them" card has already been played multiple times in this discussion and I'm tired of answering it.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:27 PM   #1325
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,335
I am not suggesting opinions are equivalent, people can decide for themselves who is making the stronger case, or, when each opinion is best applied. There may be branches of science, or individual scientists, more open to input, and think they can benefit from philosophers. There are some scientists (ie Lawrence Krauss) who have a disdain for philosophy, likely because they speak philosophically and really suck at it.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:32 PM   #1326
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm not going down some death spiral of "Mathematically define the exact level of 'correctness' an opinion has to have..." sort of thing.

A methodology which never, by it's own design and definition, advances beyond "Think about stuff really hard" is dangerous, anti-intellectual nonsense and I'm done explaining why I oppose it.

The "Well if you hate philosophy why are you in the discussion / why not just ignore them" card has already been played multiple times in this discussion and I'm tired of answering it.

Were you explaining your meaning there, or are you directing those comments to me? I'm honestly not clear what it is you're alluding to there.

In this instance, in this thread, in this context, and as far as this subject, I haven't said or asked of you any of the things you speak of here.

Are you saying others have said things like that in this thread, and that you're not willing to be civil with those who have? Or what?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:36 PM   #1327
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Are you saying others have said things like that in this thread, and that you're not willing to be civil with those who have? Or what?
"Civil is not the same as nice."
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:42 PM   #1328
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I am not suggesting opinions are equivalent, people can decide for themselves who is making the stronger case, or, when each opinion is best applied. There may be branches of science, or individual scientists, more open to input, and think they can benefit from philosophers. There are some scientists (ie Lawrence Krauss) who have a disdain for philosophy, likely because they speak philosophically and really suck at it.

Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use?

I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution.

If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.



Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:44 PM   #1329
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts. As evidence to this, there have been no agreements/clarifications on what the terms mean or refer to.
There are also no agreements between Christians and science regarding creation. That doesn't mean that there are no facts there, either.

I'm sorry but this is a silly argument. The ARE facts. Philosophy is not just another word for "opinion". Or is it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:47 PM   #1330
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Civil is not the same as nice."

Sure, agreed 100%.

It is entirely possible to be entirely civil, and yet at the same time entirely vile.

And agreed, a case can be made that civility is misplaced when faced with vileness.



But I still don't see how that ties in. You can use that argument when the context is racism, say, or some other kind of bigotry, something like that. But in a discussion on whether philosophy has any real use, you can be either right or wrong, but I don't see how niceness enters into it at all, other than in the context of civility.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 12:52 PM   #1331
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,548
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...In that reply I am asking you a question about what you meant by your "personal philosophy of self-defence”. I am asking you there, if you meant things like boxing. And what I said about that was, that I happen to watch a lot of boxing and I have listened to a lot of interviews with boxers and others in that sport, and I doubted if hardly any of them had any idea of what Philosophy even is.

But you just presented that as if I had asked if your claim of having “a personal philosophy of self defence” meant that you were watching TV interviews with boxers! I said no such thing about what you might be doing. I asked if by “self defence” you meant things like boxing, and as far as boxing was concerned I said that I doubted if many boxers even knew what “Philosophy” was/is.
Note that I did no such thing. I didn't mention myself or anyone but your anecdote of watching interviews on TV. You are not telling the truth, in a simply factual matter. Look at the structure of your Boxing reply, simplified for clarity:

1. My question (to another poster): do you have a philosophy of self defense?
2.Your counter query: Do you mean boxing? Boxers don't know anything about philosophy.
3. Your conclusion (see quote above): So, No! Philosophy is really of no interest in either of those pursuits.

First off, since sport boxing interviews have Jack squat to do with a personal philosophy of self defense, you might as well have responded talking about sustainable avacodo farming.

But we are talking about logic here. Since your boxing comments were an irrelevant flight of fancy, how did you come to your stated conclusion? Again:

Q: Do you have a philosophy of self defense?
CQ: Do you mean boxing? (followed by irrelevant TV extrapolation)
Concl: So, No! Philosophy is of no interest in those pursuits

Your conclusion, read in context, rebuts the initial question. Did you mean something else?

Eta: if you were saying philosophy is of no interest to the two random examples you plucked out of thin air, well duh. Meaningless. If you were addressing the original question, your conclusion does not follow from your random irrelevant examples.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd July 2021 at 01:13 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 01:00 PM   #1332
MinnesotaBrant
Philosopher
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,177
I think somethings exist but really you have to be special in order to see what does and does not exist. I am guessing that a lot of things you think are real do not in fact exist
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 01:25 PM   #1333
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,494
People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"I will not deploy violence to protect property but touch one hair on a loved one's head and I will unleash as much fury as is allowed under the law" strikes me as a philosophy of self-defense. Yeah, but: Some will chime in that the word "philosophy" is misused in this instance. But I see it as a valid usage. There is a structure to it, conditions to be met; it is not arbitrary. Good enough for me to call a "philosophy of self-defense." That other words could be used does not IMO cancel out the justification of calling it a "philosophy."
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 01:32 PM   #1334
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy.
How can someone be hostile towards something that they say doesn't exist?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 01:39 PM   #1335
MinnesotaBrant
Philosopher
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"I will not deploy violence to protect property but touch one hair on a loved one's head and I will unleash as much fury as is allowed under the law" strikes me as a philosophy of self-defense. Yeah, but: Some will chime in that the word "philosophy" is misused in this instance. But I see it as a valid usage. There is a structure to it, conditions to be met; it is not arbitrary. Good enough for me to call a "philosophy of self-defense." That other words could be used does not IMO cancel out the justification of calling it a "philosophy."
Or if bit do no pull away or the persons teeth may come out. That’s philosophy heh
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 03:03 PM   #1336
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Note that I did no such thing. I didn't mention myself or anyone but your anecdote of watching interviews on TV. You are not telling the truth, in a simply factual matter. Look at the structure of your Boxing reply, simplified for clarity:

1. My question (to another poster): do you have a philosophy of self defense?
2.Your counter query: Do you mean boxing? Boxers don't know anything about philosophy.
3. Your conclusion (see quote above): So, No! Philosophy is really of no interest in either of those pursuits.

First off, since sport boxing interviews have Jack squat to do with a personal philosophy of self defense, you might as well have responded talking about sustainable avacodo farming.

But we are talking about logic here. Since your boxing comments were an irrelevant flight of fancy, how did you come to your stated conclusion? Again:

Q: Do you have a philosophy of self defense?
CQ: Do you mean boxing? (followed by irrelevant TV extrapolation)
Concl: So, No! Philosophy is of no interest in those pursuits

Your conclusion, read in context, rebuts the initial question. Did you mean something else?

Eta: if you were saying philosophy is of no interest to the two random examples you plucked out of thin air, well duh. Meaningless. If you were addressing the original question, your conclusion does not follow from your random irrelevant examples.

Sorry but this is just thoroughly dishonest from you now. Look, here is your earlier post where you are clearly talking about what you called your “personal” “political philosophy” and your own “philosophy of self defence”.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Why should it lead to nothing? My political philosophy hits the road, much as my philosophy of self defence. I mention those two frequently because they are a hands-on application that even the most dedicated anti-intellectualist would acknowledge are practical.

And yes, trying to dismiss philosophy across the board is textbook anti-intellectual.
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Um...I'm not talking about what degrees a politician might have. Or degrees at all. Or politicians, for that matter. I'm talking about anyone who has a personal political philosophy, as most of us do. You can have a personal philosophy without a freaking degree in it, or a degree in anything for that matter.

I simply asked you what you meant by saying that you have a personal philosophy of politics and self defence. Here is the post where I clearly asked you if by saying “self defence” you meant things like boxing or martial arts … that was merely a question to you … and I added that as it happened I had some personal interest in boxing (over several decades, as it happens) and I do not think many boxers even know or care what the subject called “Philosophy” is or what it's about at all. So what are you complaining about there? What do you claim is wrong with me making that reply to you?

Then you replied saying the following -

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post

Do you remember when I mentioned a philosophy of self defence earlier, and for some reason you thought that meant watching interviews on the TV with people in the sport boxing industry? If you think about where you went off the rails on that one, I think you'll see your error here.

There you are accusing me of thinking that watching TV interviews of boxers was somehow what you meant by your own “personal” “philosophy of self defence” … but as everyone can see in the above exact quotes of what I said – I said not a single word about you, me or anyone else watching boxers being interviewed on TV … and neither said or implied that such interviews were where you were getting what you call your own “philosophy of self defence” … I simply asked you if by "self defence" you meant things like boxing, and where I added that as far as boxing is concerned I doubt if hardly any boxers have any interest or knowledge at all of what the subject called “Philosophy” is about.

At some point, when someone keeps misrepresenting stuff, even after they have been shown the direct quotes of both their own words and the other posters words, we all have to conclude that the person (you in this case) is simply lying about it.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 04:15 PM   #1337
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,548
IanS. Brah. You are still ducking the question: if you were just asking for clarification (although by asking if I meant something utterly unrelated), that would be fine. It would just mean you asked a ridiculously foolish question. Which is fine.

But you went on to draw a conclusion following it. Here, as you apparently forgot about that again:

Originally Posted by IanS
So, No! Philosophy is of no interest to those pursuits.
As a reminder, you were responding specifically to a question I asked another poster, specifically if he had a political philosophy and philosophy of self defense. There was no other question being asked that you would be answering.

But your courageous evasions are getting boring. So I'll answer for you:

Quote:
Oh I was just letting you know that my foolish examples had no interest in philosophy either. Yet I phrased it as an answer to your question to throw you off the scent. Misdirection and whatnot.
See? Easy.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 08:05 PM   #1338
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
IanS. Brah. You are still ducking the question: if you were just asking for clarification (although by asking if I meant something utterly unrelated), that would be fine. It would just mean you asked a ridiculously foolish question. Which is fine.

But you went on to draw a conclusion following it. Here, as you apparently forgot about that again:



As a reminder, you were responding specifically to a question I asked another poster, specifically if he had a political philosophy and philosophy of self defense. There was no other question being asked that you would be answering.

But your courageous evasions are getting boring. So I'll answer for you:

See? Easy.

OK, well the above is really an admission from you that you had “made it up” yourself when you implied that I had said anything about either of us listening to boxers on TV interviews, and presenting that as if I thought that was the sort of thing from which you got what you called your “personal philosophy” about things like whatever you meant by “self defence”. That was all entirely a bogus invention from you.

And it's utterly irrelevant whether you were previously replying to someone else. I was just responding to the comments that you had made and which I quoted from your posts. If you write things here, whether as replies to me or to anyone else, then you must expect others to comment on the things that you say. Especially if you write something seemingly absurd as you did when calling your own personal interest in what you called “self defence” to be a “philosophy”.

OK, so what do you mean when you say that you have a personal philosophy of “self defence”? What sort of self defence is it? And why is it “Philosophy”? Why is it anything more that your own personal interest in things? All sorts of people take a very deep interest in all sorts of things, such as (say) stamp collecting or ancient history, but they would not describe their interest as “Philosophy”.

In this thread we have been arguing about science vs philosophy, but people do not normally say they have a personal science of golf, or politics, or fishing, or self defence, or whatever … that would really be just a grandiose or egotistical misuse of the language.

It sounds to me, and I think it sounds to others here as well, as if you want to describe any sort of constructive thinking as “philosophy” … but as I think several of us have shown, that quickly becomes an absurd & redundant description.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 08:11 PM   #1339
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use?

I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution.

If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.



Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)
I have no 'dog in this fight', whether there is a simple Yes/No answer, and whether that answer be yes or no . . .
but I am reminded of this example, I beleive it dealt with using philosophy to analyse 'what a cell does' vs 'properties of a cell' . . . I found the link to the research and it does have the word philosophy in the title 'https://elifesciences.org/articles/46563' - but more than that it does endorse hte use of philosophy.
I also remember a theoretical physicist who claims to bounce ideas/wording of his scientific questions and interpretations - I don't remember his name but he was from UK so there's that. He also claimed that philosophy hels to lay the foundation of questions science can and will eventually get to.
All I or anyone has to do is find 1+ examples of philosophy and science in collaberation - and the examples to support the opposite to demonstatrate it's a muddle.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 08:26 PM   #1340
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"

If people here have been saying that philosophy does not exist, then I must have missed their posts (which is entirely possible over the last few pages where I think the thread has become bogged down in disputes about what anyone means by words like "logic", and where I stopped reading most of those posts).

What we should really mean by "philosophy", is what the people who lecture university courses mean by "philosophy" - and almost by definition what they mean is the stuff they teach on degree courses in "Philosophy". And I doubt if anyone here has claimed that those university courses do not exist!

The problem in this thread has been that philosophy proponents/supporters tried to claim that philosophy, ie the academic subject, is really responsible for whatever science has achieved … because (according to them) philosophy came first and science was (so they claim) born out of philosophy (or even saying that science is merely a part of, or branch of, philosophy).

But all of that aside, I'm glad to see that you appreciate why there's a problem with people describing things like self defence or politics as a “personal philosophy”
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2021, 10:51 PM   #1341
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use?

I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution.

If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.




Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)

Just on the highlighted part – much earlier in the thread, I said that in the time of the famous Greco-Roman period of philosophy (roughly 600BC to about 400AD, ?), philosophy & philosophers clearly did have a use, because along with religion, philosophers were providing what most educated people of the time believed to be good explanations for important things happening in the universe around them all. And, as with much of religious belief, those things that were being explained, were things that directly affected the daily lives of most people (eg, why did the crops grow or fail, why was there thunder, lightening, floods, disease … what were the lights in the night sky, and what role did they play for the fortunes of everyone, etc.).

But does philosophy still have that same important role today?

I think the answer has to be “No!”. Because much of that role has been taken away by answers from science. And a very important part of that, is that the answers which we have found from science, are not only very different (in most cases) from what had been believed from earlier philosophy, but they are also far more convincing (eg as a result of actual physical testing and confirmation).

To that extent, ie to the extent in which science has dealt with the same issues as philosophy had historically done, I think philosophy no longer has that use … or at least not in any direct or significant sense or degree.

Whether or not philosophy (by which I always mean the academic university subject … or in the more ancient past, I mean the work of historically famous philosophers) has some other significant use, I really do not know … because I have never studied those other branches of philosophy. But, from all of the very many threads that we've seen on forums like this where philosophy has been that subject of argument over what actual meaningful use it now has, I've yet to see any truly convincing argument or explanation from the philosophy side to show that it does still have some properly important uses. And in saying that, I mean that as a subject which is taught at degree level and at PhD research level, with professors of philosophy being paid a generous lifelong salary to teach and research that subject, it's use must be more than merely something of interest, and it must be providing answers that cannot be just as easily obtained either by other academic subjects or in fact just by virtue of any educated people thinking about the various topics and trying to find logical reasonable explanations for themselves. IOW – it cannot be just a subject which poses questions for people in other subjects (such as posing questions for science), and it cannot be a subject which just presents so-called conundrums or linguistic paradoxes etc., … because all sorts of other people, in all sorts of walks of life, can equally well think of those things themselves and decide for themselves what they think the answers should be, or indeed decide for themselves whether the questions are really worth the time of day to bother with any more.

To summarise some of that – I'm prepared to believe that Philosophy does still have some significant use/value. But I'm yet to see any really clear example of that either from people posting on forums like this, or indeed from any of the numerous philosophers who have tried to defend their subject in YouTube debates/discussions.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 01:16 AM   #1342
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
No, he isn't wasting everyone's time.

You know, in this debate --- although I haven't posted much because I didn't have much to contribute that others, including you, hadn't already said, and probably said better than I myself could --- I myself happen to be firmly on the side that you are championing. Nevertheless, I find your attempts to condescend to Thermal pretty much irritating.

And your comment about arrogance is ironical, to say the least. There is no need whatsoever to use this discussion as an excuse to **** on people. You're ending up scoring own-goals here.


They can, and they do, yes.

OK, well that's your opinion. Though I'm not sure that it's either a fair opinion, or one that's based on you having read all the posts in this thread. However -

- when I said that Thermal was wasting everyones time, I was responding specifically to his accusations that I had said or that I had implied that his self stated “personal philosophy” of self defence, must have come from him listening to boxers being interviewed on TV programmes … I'm, saying to him that he is wasting everyones time with accusations like that, because I never said or implied any such thing (and I've explained that in at least 3 posts now, so I won't go over that again).

As for being “condescending” towards Thermal, or towards anyone else here, or in any way making personalised derogatory responses to them – I absolutely never do that, unless the other poster has already directed such personalised remarks at me. You will search in vain, if you try to find me ever doing that without the other poster initiating such exchanges. However, if other posters do try that personalised abusive type stuff, then eventually I will reply usually in kind. So that's the “philosophy” there (calling it “philosophy” was a joke, just to be clear).

On the accusation of “arrogance”. I'm probably one of the least arrogant people you are ever likely to meet (and that is not itself an "arrogant" statement, really!). But I can see where you might get that impression of arrogance … though really specifically, only when we are talking about science … because that happens to be something that I do actually know about … and eventually in threads like this it becomes irritating, as well as highly misleading, when certain posters who clearly know very little about science in the sense of them having ever worked in research or ever studied at that level, write here as if they were experts. If you think it's arrogant to try explaining to them why their beliefs are wrong, then I think you are mistaking my genuine attempts at explaining things, for “arrogance” … and if you look back at those posts and how they began, I think you will always find that they started out with completely neutral non-personalised replies purely trying to give a useful, detailed, careful, honest explanation … purely to help clarify things.

Anyway – that's all I am ever trying to do when writing replies on this forum, ie trying to learn from what others have posted, and trying to help others who may learn things from what I have posted. That's all.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 03:26 AM   #1343
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How can someone be hostile towards something that they say doesn't exist?
Cancel culture?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 03:53 AM   #1344
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If people here have been saying that philosophy does not exist, then I must have missed their posts (which is entirely possible over the last few pages where I think the thread has become bogged down in disputes about what anyone means by words like "logic", and where I stopped reading most of those posts).
Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
What we should really mean by "philosophy", is what the people who lecture university courses mean by "philosophy" - and almost by definition what they mean is the stuff they teach on degree courses in "Philosophy".
Who says that's what we "should mean"? Words have multiple meanings. I think much broader usage is acceptable.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
The problem in this thread has been that philosophy proponents/supporters tried to claim that philosophy, ie the academic subject, is really responsible for whatever science has achieved … because (according to them) philosophy came first and science was (so they claim) born out of philosophy (or even saying that science is merely a part of, or branch of, philosophy).
Is that what people in this thread are claiming?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But all of that aside, I'm glad to see that you appreciate why there's a problem with people describing things like self defence or politics as a “personal philosophy”
There's not generally a problem but sometimes there is an ambiguity. It's the ambiguity that's the problem; I have no quarrel with the terms "political philosophy." People employ this usage all the time, who aren't science-bashers or professors of philosophy.

My philosophy re: this kind of thread is that when two sides are talking past each other on purpose, it's probably best to lurk (at most) and let them have at it. But, sometimes I'm tempted to chime in anyway.

Last edited by Minoosh; 3rd July 2021 at 04:01 AM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 04:04 AM   #1345
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.
As I said before, it's because participants here are using two different definitions of the word. But "philosophy can answer questions that science can't" implies, to me, the more narrow definition. But every time we try to pin that down, it transforms into the broader one, for some reason.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 04:43 AM   #1346
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
So this is, what, the 10th person who's come into the discussion who's entire argument is "How can you say that? You're doing philosophy!"
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 05:41 AM   #1347
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Numerous times when someone uses the term philosophy to describe their outlook, they're told that's not a philosophy, it's an outlook or a way of thinking. I've no objection to this usage of "philosophy" when it's a near synonym.

I would not normally object to it in everyday conversation either. I might think it's a bit of a grandiose way of someone describing their beliefs &/or ideas about things. But I would not particularly object.

But there is an important difference here in an internet thread where various posters have said and/or implied that science owes a direct historical debt to philosophy, that science was the product of philosophy, and that philosophy must take some (or even all!) of the credit for what science has achieved. When posters make claims like that, they are definitely talking about academic philosophy as practiced by famous philosophers of the past (and probably also a few of the present, eg teaching in universities) ... they are not talking about their own personal interests, ideas & pursuits as a "philosophy" that gave birth to science.



Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Who says that's what we "should mean"? Words have multiple meanings. I think much broader usage is acceptable.

I am saying that is what we should mean by "Philosophy". And the explanation/reason for that is actually given by what I just said directly above ... please have a look at that to save me typing it all out again in different words.



Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Is that what people in this thread are claiming?

Yes! That is what people have said, and/or implied, and we have been through that several times before in this thread, so I am not going to go through it again. But it's also part of people here saying or implying that all constructive thought/reasoning is actually “philosophy”, which is also something that has happened numerous times here.


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
There's not generally a problem but sometimes there is an ambiguity. It's the ambiguity that's the problem; I have no quarrel with the terms "political philosophy." People employ this usage all the time, who aren't science-bashers or professors of philosophy.

My philosophy re: this kind of thread is that when two sides are talking past each other on purpose, it's probably best to lurk (at most) and let them have at it. But, sometimes I'm tempted to chime in anyway.

The reason it's a problem in this thread is that whether or not someone decides to describe their ideas & interest in politics as their own “personal philosophy”, is because that is not what we are objecting to when anti-science claims (for want of a better description) are being made to say that philosophy is historically responsible for science, such that philosophers today can tell scientists what they should do, and tell them what is valid or not valid in their science research.

If you go to a university philosophy dept and you say that you are particularly interested in politics, they may well say to you that they have course modules in “the philosophy of politics”; and they will likely say that you should be sure to take those particular courses. But if you then tell them that you have your own “personal philosophy of politics” and you want to pursue that, then they will undoubtedly tell you that, that is not the way politics as an established academic discipline works!

Last edited by IanS; 3rd July 2021 at 05:43 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 06:35 AM   #1348
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just on the highlighted part – much earlier in the thread, I said that in the time of the famous Greco-Roman period of philosophy (roughly 600BC to about 400AD, ?), philosophy & philosophers clearly did have a use, because along with religion, philosophers were providing what most educated people of the time believed to be good explanations for important things happening in the universe around them all. And, as with much of religious belief, those things that were being explained, were things that directly affected the daily lives of most people (eg, why did the crops grow or fail, why was there thunder, lightening, floods, disease … what were the lights in the night sky, and what role did they play for the fortunes of everyone, etc.).

But does philosophy still have that same important role today?

I think the answer has to be “No!”. Because much of that role has been taken away by answers from science. And a very important part of that, is that the answers which we have found from science, are not only very different (in most cases) from what had been believed from earlier philosophy, but they are also far more convincing (eg as a result of actual physical testing and confirmation).

To that extent, ie to the extent in which science has dealt with the same issues as philosophy had historically done, I think philosophy no longer has that use … or at least not in any direct or significant sense or degree.

I agree, IanS.


Quote:
Whether or not philosophy (by which I always mean the academic university subject … or in the more ancient past, I mean the work of historically famous philosophers) has some other significant use, I really do not know … because I have never studied those other branches of philosophy. But, from all of the very many threads that we've seen on forums like this where philosophy has been that subject of argument over what actual meaningful use it now has, I've yet to see any truly convincing argument or explanation from the philosophy side to show that it does still have some properly important uses. And in saying that, I mean that as a subject which is taught at degree level and at PhD research level, with professors of philosophy being paid a generous lifelong salary to teach and research that subject, it's use must be more than merely something of interest, and it must be providing answers that cannot be just as easily obtained either by other academic subjects or in fact just by virtue of any educated people thinking about the various topics and trying to find logical reasonable explanations for themselves. IOW – it cannot be just a subject which poses questions for people in other subjects (such as posing questions for science), and it cannot be a subject which just presents so-called conundrums or linguistic paradoxes etc., … because all sorts of other people, in all sorts of walks of life, can equally well think of those things themselves and decide for themselves what they think the answers should be, or indeed decide for themselves whether the questions are really worth the time of day to bother with any more.

To summarise some of that – I'm prepared to believe that Philosophy does still have some significant use/value. But I'm yet to see any really clear example of that either from people posting on forums like this, or indeed from any of the numerous philosophers who have tried to defend their subject in YouTube debates/discussions.

Once again, I agree, more or less.

Like you, I too don’t know nearly enough about philosophy to hold a confident opinion on this on my own steam. And, like you, what I’ve seen here leads me to believe, tentatively, that, unless clearly shown otherwise, it might make sense to hold a qualified belief that philosophy does not have any real-world use any more. (And I put in all those qualifiers only to account for my own lack of first-hand familiarity with this fairly vast subject.)

-------

Except for one thing that came up in this thread itself. Again, that too is a subject I’m not conversant with, to the extent that I hadn’t even heard of this before having come across this here: but the many different types of logic --- logics, plural, as the two posters holding forth on it used the word --- would indeed appear to have real-world applications, for instance in fuzzy logic and AI. (I’m basing this on what they’ve said here, without any independent knowledge of this other than what they’ve posted.)

-------

And one other opinion that I’ve arrived at, after going through this thread, is as follows. (And this opinion I haven’t heard anyone else voice, and is my own, which makes it a very tentative opinion indeed, given my admitted ignorance of things philosophical.)

Leave aside what philosophy did 1000+ or 2000+ years ago, that’s ancient history, like you rightly say. But if we limit ourselves only to the last 100 years or so, then we see that philosophy gave us useful refinements to the scientific method (Popper’s falsifiability). Having done that, philosophy’s now redundant, as far as science, as far as I can tell. Then again, philosophy gave us logic. But having done that, apparently advanced logic, that is of actual use to us in the real world (as in fuzzy logic and AI), has advanced so far that apparently philosophy has again become redundant, as far as logic.

My point is, philosophy seems able to give us such proto-disciplines, that subsequently outstrip the reaches of philosophy when they actually develop enough to be of real use to us. The question therefore arises, might there be other such developments in philosophy, such proto-disciplines in the making, that may yet give us full-fledged disciplines that might be of use to us? I don’t know nearly enough of philosophy to present any opinion on that myself, and I’d say that without clear demonstration it is reasonable not to claim any more such proto-disciplines in the making; nevertheless, I do think that a detailed examination of philosophy might be called for, specifically from that perspective, and by people who are familiar with the kind of work that is currently being done in that field, before we actually throw it in the garbage bin.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 07:32 AM   #1349
Lithrael
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,416
I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

Last edited by Lithrael; 3rd July 2021 at 07:35 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 07:35 AM   #1350
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.
Sounds fair to me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 07:49 AM   #1351
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,754
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

In essence, yes.

But the point I was getting at --- which no doubt you appreciate, but just to make fully clear --- the discipline of Philosophy, as actually studied today, might actually have already raised such specific questions, and raised them to a sufficient degree of refinement, so that we can identify specific instances where, in the next ten or twenty or fifty years, we might find new disciplines blossoming, that do have real-world uses.

Is that actually the case? I myself don't know. Only someone fully familiar with the work actually being done currently in Philosophy can answer that (or one us might, if we took the trouble to so familiarize ourselves).

And if the answer happens to be a Yes, then that, right there, would be an actual use that the study of Philosophy has. Which is what this thread is about (or at least, what it has long been about, the OP notwithstanding).



eta: And absolutely, should some Philosopher type come along and tell us that Yes, that's exactly what's happening, then we wouldn't take him at his word. He'd have to actually show us what those potential proto-disciplines are, and why exactly he thinks they're promising. It just seems to me that to summarily reject this possibility without actually investigating this --- and on that basis to conclude that Philosophy as a discipline is entirely worthless as far as real-world applications --- seems short-sighted, and fallacious even.

Last edited by Chanakya; 3rd July 2021 at 07:54 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 01:55 PM   #1352
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,700
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
In essence, yes.

But the point I was getting at --- which no doubt you appreciate, but just to make fully clear --- the discipline of Philosophy, as actually studied today, might actually have already raised such specific questions, and raised them to a sufficient degree of refinement, so that we can identify specific instances where, in the next ten or twenty or fifty years, we might find new disciplines blossoming, that do have real-world uses.

Is that actually the case? I myself don't know. Only someone fully familiar with the work actually being done currently in Philosophy can answer that (or one us might, if we took the trouble to so familiarize ourselves).

And if the answer happens to be a Yes, then that, right there, would be an actual use that the study of Philosophy has. Which is what this thread is about (or at least, what it has long been about, the OP notwithstanding).



eta: And absolutely, should some Philosopher type come along and tell us that Yes, that's exactly what's happening, then we wouldn't take him at his word. He'd have to actually show us what those potential proto-disciplines are, and why exactly he thinks they're promising. It just seems to me that to summarily reject this possibility without actually investigating this --- and on that basis to conclude that Philosophy as a discipline is entirely worthless as far as real-world applications --- seems short-sighted, and fallacious even.
I ran across this some time ago and had been planning to post it. Your post Chanakya seems as good time as any.

Recent contribution of philosophy to science, before I read it I didn’t consider philosophy had much at all to contribute to science these days.

Opinion: Why science needs philosophy


While it’s an OP ED piece it does contain useful information.

To summarize:

Conceptual Clarification and Stem Cells.

An apparently unnamed philosopher (simply noted as “one of us”) has clarified the definition of properties relating to the “stemness” of cells. Categorizing them based on the type of tissue.

Quote:
Stem cell and cancer biology researcher Hans Clevers notes that this philosophical analysis highlights important semantic and conceptual problems in oncology and stem cell biology; he also suggests this analysis is readily applicable to experimentation (2). Indeed, beyond conceptual clarification, this philosophical work has real-world applications as illustrated by the case of cancer stem cells in oncology.
The article then goes on to note the application to dug targeting stating..

Quote:
In practice, this framework has led to the investigation of cancer therapies that combine the targeting of intrinsic cancer stem cell properties, their microenvironment, and immune checkpoints to cover all possible kinds of stemness (3).
Further the article notes the application of the same philosophical framework to the study of organoids.

Immunogenicity and the Microbiome.

In this case it was a philosophical critique of the immune self–nonself framework that has led to two significant scientific contributions. Noting that further the critique contributed to changing the notion of an organism “being a genetically homogenous self” indicating a more “symbiotic integration and immune tolerance approach to an organism’s interaction with microbes.

Influencing Cognitive Science.

This section speaks to the contribution of philosophy to theories of the mind, noting..

Quote:
Philosophy had a part in the move from behaviorism to cognitivism and computationalism in the 1960s. Perhaps most visible has been the theory of the modularity of mind, proposed by philosopher Jerry Fodor (10). Its influence on theories of cognitive architecture can hardly be overstated. In a tribute after Fodor’s passing in 2017, leading cognitive psychologist James Russell spoke in the magazine of the British Psychological Society of “cognitive developmental psychology BF (before Fodor) and AF (after Fodor)” (https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/j...odor-1935-2017).
Originally Posted by cognitive psychologist James Russell
Philosophy and science share the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation. Yet philosophers can operate these tools with degrees of thoroughness, freedom, and theoretical abstraction that practicing researchers often cannot afford in their daily activities.
It further notes that while Fodor’s theory has been, “revised and challenged, researchers continue to use, tweak, and debate his approach and basic conceptual toolkit.”

The next part of this section goes on to assert that “The false-belief task constitutes another key instance of philosophy’s impact on the cognitive sciences. Philosopher Daniel Dennett was the first to conceive the basic logic of this experiment as a revision of a test used for evaluating theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (13).”

The false-belief task

Later noting how Philosophy has helped the cognitive sciences shed problematic and outdated assumptions driving change.

Philosophy and Scientific Knowledge.

This last section deals more generally with the contribution of philosophy to the sciences. Most notable giving recommendations to “help bridge the gap between science and philosophy.”.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2021, 04:11 PM   #1353
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,700
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
For pete's sake, that was not about your knowledge at all. It was about your unwillingness to answer my challenge at the time. You are conflating things. You keep asserting that you are "using my own assertions" against me but you can't even get those assertions and arguments right.

Who said anything about 'my knowledge'? Here was your “challenge at the time”

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

I think you just contradicted yourself there. I'll wait to see if you can work out why.
Now, at least then you had the honesty, apparently, to admit you might not be correct in your assertion that I contradicted myself, hence the inclusion of “I think”. However, since I had not contradicted myself your only “challenge at the time” was for me to try to figure out what you were thinking. When I noted that, you replied by simply denying what you said and claiming I was lying.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I have been discussing this issue honestly and rationally. So those "other words" are entirely yours. You said you were going to wait for me to figure out what you were thinking. I figured when you had waited as long as suited you, you might try discussing it, if that is what your wanted.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
See my point about honesty? That's not what I said at all. You are lying.
For “pete’s” and everyone else’s sake, do try to move your augmentation, at least, somewhere near the honest end of the spectrum.


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I am always honest.
An amusing philosophy, to say the least.


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Point to one dishonest thing I have said here. You can't. Meanwhile, you persist in mischaracterising what I say. At first I thought it was just poor reading comprehension or attention, but as you insist on doing so, I find myself far less charitable.
I did, before and again above. It is not your charity that is being refuted.


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And then I asked you for a demonstration that those work in real life, and then you answered with rhetorical tricks that result in contradictions. Hardly an indication of a working philosophy.
Actually what you asked for next was...

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Marvelous. My first direct answer in this thread. So now, the follow up: could philosophy conclude that X and ~X are NOT mutually exclusive?
To which I also responded in the affirmative and stated that, for the example given, it would be a presupposition, much like them being mutually exclusive is in classical logic.

Prior to your assertion of your "first direct answer", you asserted this..

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I wasn't asking if two-bit philosophers can construct a sentence that is logically contradictory. I'm very simply asking if the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature. I have a follow up question but since no one can even grasp the first one we're kinda stuck.

That “two-bit philosophers can construct a sentence that is logically contradictory” means that at the very least “the very idea of logical contradiction is philosophical in nature”.



Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Then it's pointless. An exercise is mental masturbation. The whole point of the discussion about the usefulness of philosophy is whether it produces real world results. And yet you are still discussing theoreticals.
Theoreticals are how we make sense of "real world results". They are the foundations of science.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

I have done no such thing. As I told you earlier, you are confused by simple language. The very fact that you think an incorrect or disbelieved answer is not an answer says a lot.
Sure you did, you were a bit more subtle about it for awhile, not specifically using the word "answer" in the second part of your assertion. Basically it was clear from the start that you were trying to use two different meanings of the word answer. Answer as simply a response or acknowledgment and answer as a solution or resolution. The former your agree to the latter you do not, I was just waiting to see if it was deliberate and I don't think it was.

If a response is incorrect or disbelieved (as such) then you can't be agreeing that it was an actual response to your question.

Pretty much what you were asserting at first when you said my response 'wasn't an answer'. Even when you portrayed it a a response to some other question about the fact that people can write nonsense. Eventually, however, you did accepted it as simply a response.

If a solution is incorrect or disbelieved (as such) then you can't be agreeing that it was an actual solution to to your question.

What you've probably meant to say was...'The very fact that you think an incorrect or disbelieved solution is not a response says a lot'.

Now, normally I wouldn't be inclined to believe that simply acknowledging having been given a response (answer) to question was a big deal. However, given your proclivity to just ignore stuff. Well, we've got to take what advancements we can.




Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Hint: learn to read.
Hint: learn to understand what you write.


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not any more than one person thinking Jazz is great music and another thinking Jazz is crap. You'll have to make a more robust demonstration of this claim.
I did, I posted links and spoke about the implications, however your deliberate ignorance of what has been posted is yours to indulge in as you see fit.

For others, sorry, I was going to explain the links in a bit more detail but basically just ran out of time.

Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim

That is an article on Googles experiment in quantum supremacy. Using Qbits and quantum computing to do something the best current classical super computer couldn't complete for 10,000 years.

I'll see if I can track down the actual paper to post later


Sorry the second article I posted before should have been this one, about the actual experiment.
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

This has to do with the thought experiment of Wigner's friendWP actually being done.

A link to that paper..

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Both have implications to the quantum state vector being in two opposing sates at one time. It's the basis of the operating principle behind the experiments.

I'd only become aware of theses in the past week or so. Now the 'Wigner's friend' paper is still undergoing peer review and the google experiment needs independent verification (repeatability). Given the current problems with error correction in quantum computing it may be some time. One of the criticisms of google, that the should have focused on experiments to improve error correction instead of using resources jumping right to a splashy quantum supremacy experiment.



Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Again, this is only a contradiction because you're playing with words.
Nope, its a contradiction because the particle motions oppose each other. Now one could say that it is an example of a contradiction (A & ~A) that results in the original waveform being false (doesn't exist) as the energy of the original waveform would mostly be dissipated as heat. Though the philosophical term for something that fails reach a state of existence would be 'fails to obtain'. As in 'fails to obtain a state of existence'. Conversely 'obtain' would be the assertion of something that does reach a state of existence.

For JoeMorgue, again the reason for the difference in terminology is specificity and avoiding ambiguity. It distinguishes the state of existence of such events in the 'real world' from those of the purely conceptual constructs such as those "theoreticals", "rhetorical tricks that result in contradiction" and even the ascriptions of 'True' and 'False' themselves.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 01:49 AM   #1354
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I agree, IanS.





Once again, I agree, more or less.

Like you, I too don’t know nearly enough about philosophy to hold a confident opinion on this on my own steam. And, like you, what I’ve seen here leads me to believe, tentatively, that, unless clearly shown otherwise, it might make sense to hold a qualified belief that philosophy does not have any real-world use any more. (And I put in all those qualifiers only to account for my own lack of first-hand familiarity with this fairly vast subject.)

-------

Except for one thing that came up in this thread itself. Again, that too is a subject I’m not conversant with, to the extent that I hadn’t even heard of this before having come across this here: but the many different types of logic --- logics, plural, as the two posters holding forth on it used the word --- would indeed appear to have real-world applications, for instance in fuzzy logic and AI. (I’m basing this on what they’ve said here, without any independent knowledge of this other than what they’ve posted.)

-------

And one other opinion that I’ve arrived at, after going through this thread, is as follows. (And this opinion I haven’t heard anyone else voice, and is my own, which makes it a very tentative opinion indeed, given my admitted ignorance of things philosophical.)

Leave aside what philosophy did 1000+ or 2000+ years ago, that’s ancient history, like you rightly say. But if we limit ourselves only to the last 100 years or so, then we see that philosophy gave us useful refinements to the scientific method (Popper’s falsifiability). Having done that, philosophy’s now redundant, as far as science, as far as I can tell. Then again, philosophy gave us logic. But having done that, apparently advanced logic, that is of actual use to us in the real world (as in fuzzy logic and AI), has advanced so far that apparently philosophy has again become redundant, as far as logic.

My point is, philosophy seems able to give us such proto-disciplines, that subsequently outstrip the reaches of philosophy when they actually develop enough to be of real use to us. The question therefore arises, might there be other such developments in philosophy, such proto-disciplines in the making, that may yet give us full-fledged disciplines that might be of use to us? I don’t know nearly enough of philosophy to present any opinion on that myself, and I’d say that without clear demonstration it is reasonable not to claim any more such proto-disciplines in the making; nevertheless, I do think that a detailed examination of philosophy might be called for, specifically from that perspective, and by people who are familiar with the kind of work that is currently being done in that field, before we actually throw it in the garbage bin.


OK, well we are obviously agreeing on pretty much all of the above. Though as far as Logic is concerned, I think that is nowadays more the province of Maths as a subject (rather than philosophy). That is - if you really want to study mathematical elements of what's called "logic" (as distinct form logic being about avoiding things like contradictions or tautologies etc.), then you take a maths course in the maths dep't ... you do not enrol for a philosophy course. And as with science, I think maths has being moving away from it's earlier roots in philosophy, for several centuries now ... for almost as much time as science has, eg as I said earlier Galileo described himself (iirc ... but I can look it up if necessary) as "philosopher, mathematician and astronomer" ...

... the only reason philosophy has anything to do with science or maths at all, is that it came thousands of years before anyone had clearly defined maths and science as separate subjects with their own very precise specific methods. IOW - 2500 years ago certain people (mainly the wealthy & privileged who did not have to work for a living) were trying to think deeply about the world around us, and part of their thoughts and ideas can be recognised now with hindsight as early simple steps towards science and towards more formal maths ... but that's really the connection that philosophy has to science and even to maths, and it's simply historical, ie the result of anyone trying to think about and explain the world around us.

But what subsequently happened is that those areas of philosophy became much more formalised, and gave rise to what are now regarded as two quite different subjects in science and maths. They are no longer part of philosophy, eg in the sense that you certainly do not go to a univ philosophy dept if you want to study science or maths ... and the reason why you do go to study science or maths is that you want to understand the true answers that explain what we perceive as "Reality" ... you want to discover what the real explanation is for everything in this universe around us ... you do not go to the philosophy dept any longer for that (or if you do, then you have made a mistake lol, and you will not discover real answers to questions about "reality").

But I think that's also the explanation why philosophy appears to give us what you call Proto-disciplines, in the sense of starting the ideas … you do not need academic philosophy courses (degrees and Phd's) to do that, and you do not need university professors of philosophy etc. All that we are talking about there, as far as I can make out, is anyone having ideas about how to approach any sort of problems, with ideas about the best ways to solve the problems … and people from every walk of life and every academic discipline, do that all of the time (it happens particularly of course in science, where the methodology can be and often is applied to any sort of problem ... ie you look for a scientific way of doing things) … people do not need any academic philosophy courses to do that, and indeed it's probably a far worse approach than using science or maths anyway ...

… in that sense it looks to me as if what now passes for philosophy in academia, is more about the history of what philosophy had done in the distant past, and far less about what genuine role it still has in the world today … philosophers are trying to make it look as if it's still relevant and important enough to be maintained as a funded academic subject, but it looks to me like it's a subject more about the history of what we call “philosophy”, rather than a subject which can still claim to be the way to solve actual problems in the world in a way that actually helps us all learn about the universe around us (with all of the vast benefits that have now arisen from that sort of deep understanding of everything around us).

That's a long way of saying - I think philosophy has lost it's former importance. And that role is now taken over by science and maths.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 04:26 AM   #1355
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Who said anything about 'my knowledge'?
Ok at this point your inability to follow the conversation must be deliberate.

Quote:
An amusing philosophy, to say the least.
It's not a philosophy. It's a fact.

Quote:
I did, before and again above.
Once again: your inability to follow a conversation doesn't make me dishonest. Now move on and discuss the actual topic. I am not that topic.

Quote:
Actually what you asked for next was...
I asked the question MULTIPLE times, and in most cases I clarified that it must work in real life because otherwise it's pointless. That I didn't make that clear initially doesn't erase the clarifications that came after. You are reaching.

Quote:
Theoreticals are how we make sense of "real world results". They are the foundations of science.
No they're not. The foundation of science is reality. I'm asking you for real-world applications of the philosophy you claim deals in real contradictions. From your focus on me, and your inability to actually provide said applications, I can only conclude that there aren't any.

Quote:
However, given your proclivity to just ignore stuff.
That's not even a sentence. I've not ignored anything. Once again, if the answer doesn't satisfy you, it doesn't magically cease to be an answer. You are not the arbiter of whether an answer is correct or not.

Quote:
I did, I posted links and spoke about the implications, however your deliberate ignorance of what has been posted is yours to indulge in as you see fit.
Deliberate ignorance my ass. I acknowledged what you provided. It just isn't good enough, and you can't accept that. You are desperately trying to pin your inability to demonstrate the practical application of your vaunted philosophy on me. It's not my fault if you've cast your lot with sophistry rather than with reality. All you have to say is "no, actually there are no logical contradictions." and all will be over.

Quote:
Nope, its a contradiction because the particle motions oppose each other.
How is that a logical contradiction? This is exactly like the discussion on positronium in the other thread. Sure, once two particles annihilate each other they no longer exist, and they exist just prior. There is no moment at which they both exist and don't exist. There's no contradiction.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 05:29 AM   #1356
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok at this point your inability to follow the conversation must be deliberate.
Oh no, you see young grasshopper the "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" is just "Socraticially" acting dense and pretending to not get it in order to lead you into a Eureka moment when you realize "Wax On, Wax Off" is really a masterful blocking technique.

Again a concept I keep return to is that "Philosophy" isn't a methodology or a discipline or anything else people are pretending it is. It's a persona. It's a character. It's a set of skits. A pre-planned set of trap questions/response loops memorized by people.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 4th July 2021 at 05:44 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 06:47 AM   #1357
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,664
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I think it’d be more accurate to say philosophy can discuss things science can’t address. It doesn’t look to me like philosophy can answer questions. What it can do is lay out compelling arguments.

And, relevant to Chanakya’s post there, it can raise interesting questions. Which might later turn into science whenever we can figure out how to get at them.

Unfortunately I have to say that I don't think that stands up to scrutiny either.

What are these things that science could not address? That point has come up here at least half a dozen times, and I've explained at least 6 times why I think it's clearly wrong to imagine that there things which are somehow beyond the reach of any scientific approach to understanding them. In all of these threads, still I have yet to see an even remotely credible example of things that could not be studied scientifically ... for many things a more rough-&-ready approach might be sufficient ... and for some things there are simpler methods that work pretty well ... but that's very different from believing that such things are somehow inherently beyond any possibility of scientific study.


As for interesting questions - scientists, whatever they are studying, can think of the interesting questions for themselves. They don't need philosophers to tell them what to do. On the contrary, research scientists usually have a vast extent of detailed knowledge and information long before any philosophers are even aware of it, so that scientists in a far better position to ask (and answer) all the most important & interesting questions even before any philosophers knew that such questions could exist! So I don't think science or any other discipline needs philosophers to tell them what questions to ask or what to do ...

... and in any case, it is hardly a credible field of degree and doctorate level study if a subjects main claim to usefulness is merely to ask questions of people in entirely different fields! That's not a credible basis for an academic subject.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 07:07 AM   #1358
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
How philosophy "addresses" things science can't has not once been explained.

This is just God of the Gaps again except "god" is some incredibly vague, inconsistently applied, poorly defined "way of thinking."
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 4th July 2021 at 07:18 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 07:22 AM   #1359
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh no, you see young grasshopper the "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" is just "Socraticially" acting dense and pretending to not get it in order to lead you into a Eureka moment when you realize "Wax On, Wax Off" is really a masterful blocking technique.

Again a concept I keep return to is that "Philosophy" isn't a methodology or a discipline or anything else people are pretending it is. It's a persona. It's a character. It's a set of skits. A pre-planned set of trap questions/response loops memorized by people.
The scientific methodology is easy to understand and perform, so a 4th grader can be taught some science, and then the scientific method - and any 4th grader can do science (an experiment).
There is also a doing philospophy, the philosopher formulatates an hypothesis, and that hypophesis then must answer to reason and evidence. Doing philosophy is not doing mysticsim or writing poetry, and philosophy is hard to do, and likely harder to teach than doing science.
This thread is evidence it's hard to 'do philosophy', it's hard to put an argument together.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2021, 07:25 AM   #1360
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 41,990
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
The scientific methodology is easy to understand and perform, so a 4th grader can be taught some science, and then the scientific method - and any 4th grader can do science (an experiment).
There is also a doing philospophy, the philosopher formulatates an hypothesis, and that hypophesis then must answer to reason and evidence. Doing philosophy is not doing mysticsim or writing poetry, and philosophy is hard to do, and likely harder to teach than doing science.
This thread is evidence it's hard to 'do philosophy', it's hard to put an argument together.
I rest my case.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.